The high-risk bleeding category of different scores in patients with venous thromboembolism: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Marques Antunes M, Alves M, Pinto FJ, Agnelli G, Caldeira D
European journal of internal medicine. 2021
BACKGROUND In patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), bleeding risk should be carefully assessed but none of the available risk scores is currently recommended. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the performance of bleeding scores in patients with VTE focusing on high-risk patients. METHODS Longitudinal studies were searched in Medline and Cochrane Library, as well as reviews and references of retrieved articles. Studies were identified, data were extracted, and reporting quality was evaluated. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of the 'high risk' category of each bleeding score. Random effects meta-analysis was performed in order to derive the central estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS Twenty-one studies and ten bleeding scores fulfilled the inclusion criteria. VTE-BLEED showed the highest sensitivity but the second-lowest specificity (Se 76%; Sp 61%), followed by ACCP (Se 59%; Sp 57%). The remaining scores had high specificity (> 80%) but a low sensitivity (< 20%). HEMORR(2)HAGES and Niewenhuis score showed the best performance regarding LR+ that was 2.67 and 5.91, respectively. Regarding DOR, the Niewenhuis score and VTE-BLEED were the best performers with 9.04; 95% CI 3.87-21.09 and 4.94 95% CI 2.66-9.09, respectively. In a cohort with patients predominantly treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), VTE-BLEED had the highest sensitivity (Se 77%; Sp 60%). CONCLUSIONS Overall, the majority of the risk scores showed a moderate ability to forecast major bleeding events, with the VTE-BLEED as the most sensitive in patients treated with DOACs.
Risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients: an overview of systematic reviews
Darzi AJ, Repp AB, Spencer FA, Morsi RZ, Charide R, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, Bauer KA, Burnett AE, Cushman M, Dentali F, et al
Blood advances. 2020;4(19):4929-4944
Free full text
Multiple risk-assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients have been developed. To inform the 2018 American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on VTE, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews to identify and summarize evidence related to RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We searched Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Database, Medline, and Embase from 2005 through June 2017 and then updated the search in January 2020 to identify systematic reviews that included RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We conducted study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment (using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews [ROBIS] tool) independently and in duplicate. We described the characteristics of the reviews and their included studies, and compared the identified RAMs using narrative synthesis. Of 15 348 citations, we included 2 systematic reviews, of which 1 had low risk of bias. The reviews included 19 unique studies reporting on 15 RAMs. Seven of the RAMs were derived using individual patient data in which risk factors were included based on their predictive ability in a regression analysis. The other 8 RAMs were empirically developed using consensus approaches, risk factors identified from a literature review, and clinical expertise. The RAMs that have been externally validated include the Caprini, Geneva, IMPROVE, Kucher, and Padua RAMs. The Padua, Geneva, and Kucher RAMs have been evaluated in impact studies that reported an increase in appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates. Our findings informed the ASH guidelines. They also aim to guide health care practitioners in their decision-making processes regarding appropriate individual prophylactic management.
Adult patients hospitalized for an acute, critical, or chronic medical illness. (2 systematic reviews).
Overview of systematic reviews to identify and describe multiple risk-assessment models (RAMs) and their clinical utility for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding.
Standard care without the use of RAMs or a different RAM from the one used in the intervention.
Fifteen unique RAMs for VTE were identified, seven were derived from individual participant data and eight were developed empirically using consensus approaches, risk factors identified from a literature review, and clinical expertise. Five systematic reviews described RAMs that have been externally validated and three systematic reviews described RAMs evaluated in terms of thromboprophylaxis rates or clinical outcomes.
Risk models for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients: systematic identification and expert assessment
Darzi AJ, Karam SG, Spencer FA, Spyropoulos AC, Mbuagbaw L, Woller SC, Zakai NA, Streiff MB, Gould MK, Cushman M, et al
Blood Adv. 2020;4(12):2557-2566
Risk assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients inform appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis. Our aim was to use a novel approach for selecting risk factors for VTE and bleeding to be included in RAMs. First, we used the results of a systematic review of all candidate factors. Second, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the identified factors. Third, we using a structured approach to select factors to develop the RAMs, by building on clinical and methodological expertise. The expert panel made judgments on whether to include, potentially include, or exclude risk factors, according to domains of the GRADE approach and the Delphi method. The VTE RAM included age >60 years, previous VTE, acute infections, immobility, acute paresis, active malignancy, critical illness, and known thrombophilia. The bleeding RAM included age >=65 years, renal failure, thrombocytopenia, active gastroduodenal ulcers, hepatic disease, recent bleeding, and critical illness. We identified acute infection as a factor that was not considered in widely used RAMs. Also, we identified factors that require further research to confirm or refute their importance in a VTE RAM (eg, D-dimer). We excluded autoimmune disease which is included in the IMPROVE (International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism) bleeding RAM. Our results also suggest that sex, malignancy, and use of central venous catheters (factors in the IMPROVE bleeding RAM) require further research. In conclusion, our study presents a novel approach to systematically identifying and assessing risk factors to be included or further explored during RAM development.
Meta-Analysis of Bleeding Scores Performance for Acute Coronary Syndrome
Wang TKM, Mehta OH, Liao YB, Wang MTM, Stewart R, White H
Heart Lung Circ. 2020
BACKGROUND Bleeding is a common and frequently devastating complication in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). It is critical to evaluate in the current era of ACS management involving invasive strategies and potent anti-thrombotics. Risk models remain under-utilised in this setting but may guide the choice and duration of therapy. We compared their performances for predicting bleeding in ACS patients in this meta-analysis. METHODS Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Scopus were searched for relevant articles from 1980 to 31 December 2017 assessing external validation of risk scores for bleeding after ACS. Two (2) authors independently reviewed the searched studies for eligibility, followed by pooled analyses using random effects models. RESULTS Amongst 1,843 articles searched, 73 full-texts were reviewed and 17 studies totalling 18,155 patients were included for analysis. C-statistics (95% confidence interval) for predicting in-hospital major bleeding by risk model were Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) 0.714 (0.659-0.779), Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY (ACUITY) 0.711 (0.626-0.797), Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network (ACTION) 0.767 (0.737-0.797), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) 0.689 (0.473-0.905) and HAS-BLED 0.636 (0.460-0.812). CRUSADE also predicted bleeding during medium-term follow-up c=0.704 (0.644-0.765). It performed better for radial versus femoral access (c=0.826 and 0.734), invasive versus non-invasive strategy (c=0.752 and 0.625) and similarly for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (c=0.791 and 0.760). Heterogeneities of studies and paucity of studies assessing risk scores beyond CRUSADE were important limitations. CONCLUSIONS Acute coronary syndrome-specific bleeding scores had moderate discrimination for bleeding, while the GRACE and HAS-BLED scores could not. The ACTION score had the highest pooled c-statistic, while the CRUSADE score was the most widely studied, and also performed better for invasive strategy and radial access subgroups.
Island Sign Predicts Hematoma Expansion and Poor Outcome After Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Wei Y, Zhu G, Gao Y, Chang J, Zhang H, Liu N, Tian C, Jiang P, Gao Y
Front Neurol. 2020;11:429
Background: Early hematoma expansion (HE) occurs in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) within the first few hours from ICH onset. Hematoma expansion has been considered as an independent predictor of poor clinical outcome and mortality after ICH. Island sign (IS) on the non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) appears to increase the rate of detection of HE. However, there is insufficient evidence to declare that IS is an independent predictor for ICH patients prognosis and classification. Objectives: To investigate whether IS on NCCT could predict HE and functional outcome following ICH. Methods: Major databases were systematically searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and the Chinese database (CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases). Studies about the associations between IS and HE or IS and clinical outcome were included. The pooled result used the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) as effect size. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were applied to detect potential factors of heterogeneity. Results: Eleven studies with 4,310 patients were included in the final analysis. The average incidence rate of IS and HE were 21.58 and 33%, respectively. The ideal timing for assessing HE was also not uniform or standardized. We separately performed two meta-analyses. First, 10 studies were included to estimate the association between IS and HE. The pooled OR was statistically significant (OR = 7.61, 95% CI = 3.10-18.67, P < 0.001). Second, four studies were included in the meta-analysis, and the pooled result showed that IS had a significantly positive relationship with poor outcome (OR = 3.83, 95% CI = 2.51-5.85, P < 0.001). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that NCCT IS is of great importance and value for evaluation of HE and poor outcome in patients with ICH. Future studies should focus on developing consensus guidelines, and more studies with large sample size and longitudinal design are needed to validate the conclusions.
Intrathecal Fibrinolysis for Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies
Lu X, Ji C, Wu J, You W, Wang W, Wang Z, Chen G
Frontiers in neurology. 2019;10:885
Background: The role of intrathecal fibrinolysis for the treatment of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) has been widely investigated; however, the results have been contradictory. In our study, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intrathecal (intracisternal or intraventricular) fibrinolysis for aSAH. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane library databases were searched up to February 1, 2019. The outcomes analyzed were neurologic recovery, delayed ischemic neurologic deficit (DIND), mortality, and the incidence of chronic hydrocephalus and hemorrhage. Results: A total of 21 studies comprising 1,373 patients were analyzed, including nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 non-RCTs. The results showed that intracisternal fibrinolysis significantly decreased poor neurologic outcomes (RR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.50-0.76, P < 0.001) and reduced the incidence of DIND (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.41-0.65, P <0.001), chronic hydrocephalus (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.42-0.82, P = 0.002) and mortality (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.37, 0.93, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of hemorrhage. Moreover, the results of the Egger test and Begg's funnel plot showed no evidence of publication bias. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that intracisternal fibrinolysis has beneficial effects on the clinical outcomes of patients with aSAH. However, further well-designed randomized trials are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of intracisternal fibrinolysis for the treatment of aSAH.