Evidence Hub

Development and Validation of a Predictive Risk Algorithm for Bleeding in Individuals on Long-term Hemodialysis: An International Prospective Cohort Study (BLEED-HD)

M. Madken, R. Mallick, E. Rhodes, Roshanak Mahdavi, Anan Bader Eddeen, G. Hundemer, Dearbhla M. Kelly, A. Karaboyas et al.

Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, 2023

2,773 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Background: Individuals with kidney disease are at a high risk of bleeding and as such tools that identify those at highest risk may aid mitigation strategies. Objective: We set out to develop and validate a prediction equation (BLEED-HD) to identify patients on maintenance hemodialysis at high risk of bleeding. Design: International prospective cohort study (development); retrospective cohort study (validation). Settings: Development: 15 countries (Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study [DOPPS] phase 2-6 from 2002 to 2018); Validation: Ontario, Canada. Patients: Development: 53 147 patients; Validation: 19 318 patients. Measurements: Hospitalization for a bleeding event. Methods: Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Among the DOPPS cohort (mean age, 63.7 years; female, 39.7%), a bleeding event occurred in 2773 patients (5.2%, event rate 32 per 1000 person-years), with a median follow-up of 1.6 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.9-2.1) years. BLEED-HD included 6 variables: age, sex, country, previous gastrointestinal bleeding, prosthetic heart valve, and vitamin K antagonist use. The observed 3-year probability of bleeding by deciles of risk ranged from 2.2% to 10.8%. Model discrimination was low to moderate (c-statistic = 0.65) with excellent calibration (Brier score range = 0.036-0.095). Discrimination and calibration of BLEED-HD were similar in an external validation of 19 318 patients from Ontario, Canada. Compared to existing bleeding scores, BLEED-HD…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,773 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free