Evaluation of Definitions for Oral Anticoagulant–Associated Major Bleeding: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Major bleeding is the most serious complication of oral anticoagulation. Consensus criteria to define major bleeding have been established by the International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI). Significant variability exists across these definitions, and their agreement for identifying oral anticoagulant (OAC) related major bleeding is unknown. Furthermore, the association between each definition and mortality in cases of OAC bleeding has not been evaluated. We therefore, sought to evaluate the agreement of cases identified as major bleeding by the ISTH, BARC and TIMI definitions, and to assess associated in-hospital (emergency department or inpatient) and 30-day mortality of cases identified by these criteria. Methods: We used an existing dataset of individuals ≥66 years in Ontario, Canada, who presented to one of five tertiary care institutions with OAC related bleeding across three cities from 2010-2015. Detailed clinical data on consecutive episodes of OAC-associated bleeding were linked to population-based databases held at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. We calculated Cohen's κ for agreement between the three major bleeding definitions, and used Pearson's χ2 to determine any differences in in-hospital and 30-day mortality for cases defined as major bleeding by ISTH, BARC and TIMI criteria. Results: We included 2,002 cases of OAC related bleeding in the analysis (460 on direct oral anticoagulants, 1,542 on warfarin). ISTH, BARC and TIMI major bleeding definitions were met in 75%, 77% and 29% of cases, respectively. 18% of cases did not meet criteria for major bleeding by any definition. Age, sex, CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED score, as well as proportion of chronic kidney disease were similar across ISTH-, BARC- and TIMI-defined cases. Over 9 in 10 cases of TIMI-defined major bleeding events involved an intracranial hemorrhage (94.4%), compared to 37% and 36% of cases identified by ISTH or BARC definitions respectively (p<0.001 across three groups). Agreement in case identification between ISTH and BARC was substantial (agreement 89%; Cohen's κ=0.69). On the other hand, agreement between TIMI and both ISTH (agreement 54%; Cohen's κ =0.24) and BARC (agreement 52%; Cohen's κ=0.21) were poor. The association between in-hospital mortality and TIMI-defined major bleeding was higher (29%) than that for ISTH and BARC (17% for both; p<0.001 for TIMI vs. ISTH and TIMI vs. BARC). The association with 30-day mortality showed a similar trend (30%, 18% and 18% for TIMI-, ISTH- and BARC- defined major bleeding events respectively; p<0.001 for TIMI vs. ISTH and TIMI vs. BARC). 6% of cases that were not categorized as major bleeding by ISTH or BARC definitions died within 30 days of hospital presentation, and this was 10% for cases not meeting criteria for TIMI major bleeding (10%, p=0.036 by Pearson's χ2). Conclusions: Among patients with OAC-associated bleeding, major bleeding events identified by ISTH and BARC criteria showed good agreement and similar prognostic utility. Meanwhile, TIMI criteria identified patients with higher clinical risk and subsequent mortality. Patients presenting with OAC-associated bleeding who did not fulfill ISTH or BARC major bleeding criteria had considerable risk of 30-day mortality and was even higher among those not meeting the TIMI criteria. Our findings suggest the need to refine current major bleeding definitions to identify additional patients at risk of death. Disclosures Wells: Bayer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Sholzberg:Amgen: Research Funding; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Octapharma: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».