Scores to Predict Major Bleeding Risk During Oral Anticoagulation Therapy: A Prospective Validation Study

BACKGROUND: Clinical scores may help physicians to better assess the individual risk/benefit of oral anticoagulant therapy. We aimed to externally validate and compare the prognostic performance of 7 clinical prediction scores for major bleeding events during oral anticoagulation therapy. METHODS: We followed 515 adult patients taking oral anticoagulants to measure the first major bleeding event over a 12-month follow-up period. The performance of each score to predict the risk of major bleeding and the physician's subjective assessment of bleeding risk were compared with the C statistic. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of a first major bleeding event during follow-up was 6.8% (35/515). According to the 7 scoring systems, the proportions of major bleeding ranged from 3.0% to 5.7% for low-risk, 6.7% to 9.9% for intermediate-risk, and 7.4% to 15.4% for high-risk patients. The overall predictive accuracy of the scores was poor, with the C statistic ranging from 0.54 to 0.61 and not significantly different from each other (P = .84). Only the Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation score performed slightly better than would be expected by chance (C statistic, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.70). The performance of the scores was not statistically better than physicians' subjective risk assessments (C statistic, 0.55; P = .94). CONCLUSION: The performance of 7 clinical scoring systems in predicting major bleeding events in patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy was poor and not better than physicians' subjective assessments. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. The American Journal of Medicine (2012) 125, 1095-1102