Bleeding risk assessment tools in patients with atrial fibrillation taking anticoagulants: a comparative review and clinical implications.

IF 1.8 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Chia Siang Kow, Feng Chen, Shawn Kai Jie Leong, Kai Yuan Tham, Li Ann Yeoh, Ze Ming Chew, Wen Jie Peh, Kaeshaelya Thiruchelvam
{"title":"Bleeding risk assessment tools in patients with atrial fibrillation taking anticoagulants: a comparative review and clinical implications.","authors":"Chia Siang Kow, Feng Chen, Shawn Kai Jie Leong, Kai Yuan Tham, Li Ann Yeoh, Ze Ming Chew, Wen Jie Peh, Kaeshaelya Thiruchelvam","doi":"10.1080/14779072.2025.2523920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bleeding risk assessment plays a critical role in the anticoagulation management for atrial fibrillation (AF), to balance stroke prevention with risk of major hemorrhage. Traditional bleeding risk models, such as HAS-BLED, ORBIT, and ATRIA, offer valuable insights but have limitations in predictive accuracy and clinical applicability. Recent advances in risk stratification have introduced novel models integrating biomarkers, genetic data, and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven algorithms to improve precision and individualized patient care.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>This review evaluates strengths and limitations of established bleeding risk assessment tools and explores emerging trends in predictive modeling. It discusses novel risk stratification models- DOAC Score, GARFIELD-AF, and HEMORR₂HAGES, which incorporate renal function markers, hematologic parameters, and genetic polymorphisms to enhance predictive accuracy. Integration of machine learning and digital health tools, such as the Universal Clinician Device (UCD) and the mAFA-II mobile application, was also examined for their role in improving anticoagulation safety and adherence.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>The future of bleeding risk assessment lies in AI-driven, real-time risk prediction models adapting to dynamic patient profiles. Enhanced integration of digital health solutions and learning health systems will minimize adverse events while optimizing stroke prevention. Future research should prioritize the validation and standardization of these novel tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":12098,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"303-315"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14779072.2025.2523920","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Bleeding risk assessment plays a critical role in the anticoagulation management for atrial fibrillation (AF), to balance stroke prevention with risk of major hemorrhage. Traditional bleeding risk models, such as HAS-BLED, ORBIT, and ATRIA, offer valuable insights but have limitations in predictive accuracy and clinical applicability. Recent advances in risk stratification have introduced novel models integrating biomarkers, genetic data, and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven algorithms to improve precision and individualized patient care.

Areas covered: This review evaluates strengths and limitations of established bleeding risk assessment tools and explores emerging trends in predictive modeling. It discusses novel risk stratification models- DOAC Score, GARFIELD-AF, and HEMORR₂HAGES, which incorporate renal function markers, hematologic parameters, and genetic polymorphisms to enhance predictive accuracy. Integration of machine learning and digital health tools, such as the Universal Clinician Device (UCD) and the mAFA-II mobile application, was also examined for their role in improving anticoagulation safety and adherence.

Expert opinion: The future of bleeding risk assessment lies in AI-driven, real-time risk prediction models adapting to dynamic patient profiles. Enhanced integration of digital health solutions and learning health systems will minimize adverse events while optimizing stroke prevention. Future research should prioritize the validation and standardization of these novel tools.

房颤患者使用抗凝剂的出血风险评估工具:比较回顾和临床意义。
出血风险评估在房颤(AF)的抗凝管理中起着关键作用,以平衡卒中预防与大出血风险。传统的出血风险模型,如HAS-BLED、ORBIT和ATRIA,提供了有价值的见解,但在预测准确性和临床适用性方面存在局限性。风险分层的最新进展引入了整合生物标志物、遗传数据和人工智能(AI)驱动算法的新模型,以提高患者的精确性和个性化护理。涵盖领域:本综述评估了现有出血风险评估工具的优势和局限性,并探讨了预测建模的新趋势。它讨论了新的风险分层模型- DOAC评分,GARFIELD-AF和HEMORR₂HAGES,这些模型结合了肾功能标志物,血液学参数和遗传多态性来提高预测准确性。还研究了机器学习和数字健康工具(如通用临床医生设备(UCD)和mAFA-II移动应用程序)的集成在提高抗凝安全性和依从性方面的作用。专家意见:出血风险评估的未来在于人工智能驱动的实时风险预测模型,该模型可适应动态患者情况。加强数字卫生解决方案和学习卫生系统的整合将最大限度地减少不良事件,同时优化卒中预防。未来的研究应优先考虑这些新工具的验证和标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy
Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy (ISSN 1477-9072) provides expert reviews on the clinical applications of new medicines, therapeutic agents and diagnostics in cardiovascular disease. Coverage includes drug therapy, heart disease, vascular disorders, hypertension, cholesterol in cardiovascular disease, heart disease, stroke, heart failure and cardiovascular surgery. The Expert Review format is unique. Each review provides a complete overview of current thinking in a key area of research or clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信