Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Jul 19.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Jul 19;58(4):395–401. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.03.031

Table 5. Comparison of Risk Stratification Capacity (% cohort person-years), Annualized Major Hemorrhage Rate, c-index, and Net Reclassification Improvement across Hemorrhage Risk Schemes.

Risk Scheme Low Risk Intermediate Risk High Risk c-index (95% CI) for 3-category scores* c-index (95% CI) for continuous scores Net Reclassification Improvement

% pyrs Rate % pyrs Rate % pyrs Rate
ATRIA risk score 82.6 0.76 7.2 2.62 10.2 5.76 0.69 (0.66-0.71) 0.74 (0.72-0.76) Referent
Outpatient Bleeding Index 10.1 0.39 83.0 1.31 6.9 3.96 0.59 (0.58-0.61) 0.68 (0.65-0.70) 50.5%
Kuijer et al. 7.2 0.42 77.7 1.40 15.1 1.89 0.56 (0.55-0.58) 0.57 (0.54-0.59) 56.6%
Kearon et al. 58.2 0.61 38.7 2.27 3.1 5.53 0.67 (0.65-0.69) 0.69 (0.67-0.71) 27.7%
HEMORR2HAGES 65.9 0.72 29.0 2.49 5.1 3.96 0.67 (0.65-0.70) 0.71 (0.69-0.73) 28.9%
Shireman et al. 78.6 0.87 20.3 3.18 1.0 6.72 0.64 (0.61-0.66) 0.70 (0.68-0.73) 33.4%
RIETE risk scheme 37.6 0.56 62.0 1.86 0.4 10.20 0.63 (0.61-0.66) 0.68 (0.65-0.70) 44.8%
*

c-index calculated when risk schemes were separated into 3-categories (low, intermediate, high)

c-index calculated when risk schemes were in a continuous format

Net reclassification improvement calculated using the method by Pencina et al(14).