[A comparison of CAS risk model and CHA2DS2-VASc risk model in guiding anticoagulation treatment in Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation].

Objective: To compare the differences between CAS risk model and CHA2DS2-VASc risk score in predicting all cause death, thromboembolic events, major bleeding events and composite endpoint in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. From the China Atrial Fibrillation Registry cohort study, the patients with atrial fibrillation who were>18 years old were randomly divided into CAS risk score group and CHA2DS2-VASc risk score group respectively. According to the anticoagulant status at baseline and follow-up, patients in the 2 groups who complied with the scoring specifications for anticoagulation were selected for inclusion in this study. Baseline information such as age and gender in the two groups were collected and compared. Follow-up was performed periodically to collect information on anticoagulant therapy and endpoints. The endpoints were all-cause death, thromboembolism events and major bleeding, the composite endpoint events were all-cause death and thromboembolism events. The incidence of endpoints in CAS group and CHA2DS2-VASc group was analyzed, and multivariate Cox proportional risk model was used to analyze whether the incidence of the endpoints was statistically different between the two groups. Results: A total of 5 206 patients with AF were enrolled, average aged (63.6±12.2) years, and 2092 (40.2%) women. There were 2 447 cases (47.0%) in CAS risk score group and 2 759 cases (53.0%) in CHA2DS2-VASc risk score group. In the clinical baseline data of the two groups, the proportion of left ventricular ejection fraction<55%, non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, oral warfarin and HAS BLED score in the CAS group were lower than those in the CHA2DS2-VASc group, while the proportion of previous diabetes history and history of antiplatelet drugs in the CAS group was higher than that in the CHA2DS2-VASc group, and there was no statistical difference in other baseline data. Patients were followed up for (82.8±40.8) months. In CAS risk score group, 225(9.2%) had all-cause death, 186 (7.6%) had thromboembolic events, 81(3.3%) had major bleeding, and 368 (15.0%) had composite endpoint. In CHA2DS2-VASc risk score group, 261(9.5%) had all-cause death 209(7.6%) had thromboembolic events, 112(4.1%) had major bleeding, and 424 (15.4%) had composite endpoint. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of all-cause death, thromboembolic events, major bleeding and composite endpoint between anticoagulation in CAS risk score group and anticoagulation in CHA2DS2-VASc risk score group (log-rank P =0.643, 0.904, 0.126, 0.599, respectively). Compared with CAS risk score, multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models showed no significant differences for all-cause death, thromboembolic events, major bleeding and composite endpoint between the two groups with HR(95%CI) 0.95(0.80-1.14), 1.00(0.82-1.22), 0.83(0.62-1.10), 0.96(0.84-1.11), respectively. All P>0.05. Conclusions: There were no significant differences between CAS risk model and CHA2DS2-VASc risk score in predicting all-cause death, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding events in Chinese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.目的： 比较CAS和CHA2DS2-VASc评分两种卒中风险评估模型预测非瓣膜性心房颤动（房颤）患者全因死亡、血栓栓塞、大出血事件以及复合终点发生方面的差异。 方法： 本研究为回顾性队列研究。从中国房颤注册研究（CAFR）中，选取年龄>18岁的非瓣膜性房颤患者，随机分为CAS评分组和CHA2DS2-VASc评分组，并根据基线和随访过程中抗凝状态筛选出2组中依从评分规范抗凝的患者纳入本研究。收集并比较两组患者的年龄、性别等基本信息，并定期进行随访，随访内容包括是否接受抗凝治疗以及终点事件。终点事件为全因死亡、血栓栓塞和大出血事件，复合终点事件为全因死亡和血栓栓塞事件。分析CAS评分组和CHA2DS2-VASc评分组相关终点事件发生情况，并采用多因素Cox比例风险模型比较两组相关终点事件发生率的差异。 结果： 共纳入5 206例房颤患者，年龄（63.6±12.2）岁，女性2 092例（40.2%）。其中CAS评分组2 447例（47.0%），CHA2DS2-VASc评分组2 759例（53.0%）。CAS组左心室射血分数<55%、非阵发性房颤、口服华法林比例以及HAS-BLED评分低于CHA2DS2-VASC组，而既往糖尿病病史和抗血小板药物服药史比例高于CHA2DS2-VASC组，其余基线资料差异无统计学意义。随访（82.8±40.8）个月，CAS评分组中有225例（9.2%）发生全因死亡，186例（7.6%）发生血栓栓塞事件，81例（3.3%）发生大出血事件，368例（15.0%）发生复合终点事件。CHA2DS2-VASc评分组有261例（9.5%）发生全因死亡，209例（7.6%）发生血栓栓塞事件，112例（4.1%）发生大出血事件，424例（15.4%）发生复合终点事件。两组患者在全因死亡、血栓栓塞、大出血事件以及复合终点事件发生方面差异均无统计学意义（log-rank P值分别为0.643、0.904、0.126、0.599）。Cox多因素回归分析结果也显示，两组患者在全因死亡、血栓栓塞、大出血事件以及复合终点发生方面差异均无统计学意义，HR值（95%CI）分别为0.95（0.80~1.14）、1.00（0.82~1.22）、0.83（0.62~1.10）、0.96（0.84~1.11），P均>0.05。 结论： 在中国非瓣膜性房颤患者中，CAS评分和CHA2DS2-VASc评分在预测全因死亡、血栓栓塞事件以及大出血事件方面效价相同。.