CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 scores for risk stratification of major adverse cardiovascular events in the COMPASS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial demonstrated that the combination therapy of rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to aspirin alone in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Purpose We assessed whether the CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA)/thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65–75 years, and sex category) and CHADS2 (CHF, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes, stroke/TIA) scores used to predict the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, can be used identify vascular patients at highest risk of recurrent events who may derive greatest benefits of treatment. Methods In COMPASS patients, the predictive accuracy of CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 scores were assessed for MACE, bleeding and net clinical benefit using Cox proportional hazards model. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative risk and absolute risk differences were used to examine the effects of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone over 30 months according to risk score categories. Results In 27,395 participants with CAD and/or PAD, a high CHA2DS2-VASc score (6–9) was associated with 3 times greater absolute risk of MACE compared to a low score (1–2) (hazard ratio=3.39, 95% CI: 2.54–4.51, p<0.0001). The effects of combination therapy with rivaroxaban and aspirin on MACE, bleeding and net clinical benefit were consistent across CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 score categories, with the greatest benefit in those with the highest risk scores (Figure 1). The greatest reduction in MACE with rivaroxaban and aspirin compared to aspirin only was observed in patients treated for 30 months with highest CHA2DS2-VASc score (6–9) (23 events per 1000 patients prevented) or highest CHADS2 score (3–6) (25 events per 1000 patients prevented). There was increased bleeding in patients with higher CHA2DS2-VASc and CHADS2 scores, but net clinical benefit was preserved across all risk categories and was greatest in those with the highest risk scores. Conclusion The CHA2DS2-VASc or CHADS2 scores can be used in patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD to identify patients who are at highest risk of MACE, and therefore likely to achieve the greatest benefit of dual pathway inhibition with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): This study was sponsored by Bayer AG.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".