2023
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1032736
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finding low CHA2DS2-VASc scores unreliable? Why not give morphological and hemodynamic methods a try?

Abstract: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) suffer from a high risk of thrombosis. Currently, the CHA2DS2-VASc score is the most widely used tool for risk stratification in patients with AF, but it has disappointing accuracy and limited predictive value, especially in those with low scores. Thrombi in patients with AF mostly grow in their left atrial appendages (LAA), which is directly related to the abnormal morphology of the LAA or the left atrium and the unusual hemodynamic state around LAA, which may sensitivel… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Those results based on CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score failed to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risks with versus without the intervention and taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously [32] . One reason why the CHA2DS2-VASc score may not be suitable for stratifying treatment effects is that it has limited predictive value, especially in those with low scores [33] . A better approach to reach this issue might be developing a new tool to examine heterogeneity in treatment effects, as Karwath, et al did in their study [34] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those results based on CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score failed to provide patient-centered estimates of outcome risks with versus without the intervention and taking into account all relevant patient attributes simultaneously [32] . One reason why the CHA2DS2-VASc score may not be suitable for stratifying treatment effects is that it has limited predictive value, especially in those with low scores [33] . A better approach to reach this issue might be developing a new tool to examine heterogeneity in treatment effects, as Karwath, et al did in their study [34] .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thrombotic and embolic risk stratification in pregnant women is similar to that of non-pregnant women, since pregnancy is not included as a risk factor in the commonly used scores [ 70 ]. Moreover, the -VASC has not been validated for pregnant women and is thought to underestimate the risk of stroke in pregnant females with AF [ 104 , 105 , 106 ]. Nevertheless, it is currently the only score system recommended for pregnant women [ 4 ].…”
Section: Anticoagulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…AFib patients are treated with anticoagulation medication to reduce their thrombotic risk, but the treatment increases their bleeding risk (6). The current tools to assess whether anticoagulation therapy is warranted for a particular patient (e.g., the CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score) are based on comorbid factors, which lack any mechanistic associations with thrombus formation, predictive accuracy, and personalization (7). Notably, the same metrics used to calculate CHA 2 DS 2 VASc are associated with fibrotic myocardial remodeling in response to tissue injury (8).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%