CHA₂DS₂-VASc Score: 0

Stroke risk was 0.2% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 0.3% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.
One recommendation suggests a 0 score is “low” risk and may not require anticoagulation

Stroke risk was 0.6% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 0.9% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.
One recommendation suggests a 1 score is “low-moderate” risk and should consider antiplatelet or anticoagulation.

Stroke risk was 2.2% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 2.9% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.

Stroke risk was 3.2% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 4.6% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.

Stroke risk was 4.8% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 6.7% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.

Stroke risk was 7.2% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 10.0% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.

Stroke risk was 9.7% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 13.6% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.

Stroke risk was 11.2% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 15.7% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.

Stroke risk was 10.8% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 15.2% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.
We realize that 8 points showed a lower risk than 7 points, these were the findings in the study, obviously one should assume all scores ≥7 have a risk >10%.

Stroke risk was 12.2% per year in >90,000 patients (the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation Cohort Study) and 17.4% risk of stroke/TIA/systemic embolism.

One recommendation suggests a 2 or greater score is “moderate-high” risk and should otherwise be an anticoagulation candidate.

HAS-BLED Score: 0

Risk was 0.9% in one validation study and 1.13 bleeds per 100 patient-years in another validation study.
Anticoagulation should be considered: Patient has a relatively low risk for major bleeding (~1/100 patient-years).

Risk was 3.4% in one validation study and 1.02 bleeds per 100 patient-years in another validation study.
Anticoagulation should be considered: Patient has a relatively low risk for major bleeding (~1/100 patient-years).

Risk was 4.1% in one validation study and 1.88 bleeds per 100 patient-years in another validation study.
Anticoagulation can be considered, however patient does have moderate risk for major bleeding (~2/100 patient-years).

Risk was 5.8% in one validation study and 3.72 bleeds per 100 patient-years in another validation study.
Alternatives to anticoagulation should be considered: Patient is at high risk for major bleeding.

Risk was 8.9% in one validation study and 8.70 bleeds per 100 patient-years in another validation study.
Alternatives to anticoagulation should be considered: Patient is at high risk for major bleeding.

Risk was 9.1% in one validation study and 12.50 bleeds per 100 patient-years in another validation study.
Alternatives to anticoagulation should be considered: Patient is at high risk for major bleeding.

Scores greater than 5 were too rare to determine risk, but are likely over 10%.
Alternatives to anticoagulation should be considered: Patient is at very high risk for major bleeding.

Scores greater than 5 were too rare to determine risk, but are likely over 10%.
Alternatives to anticoagulation should be considered: Patient is at very high risk for major bleeding.

Scores greater than 5 were too rare to determine risk, but are likely over 10%.
Alternatives to anticoagulation should be considered: Patient is at very high risk for major bleeding.

Scores greater than 5 were too rare to determine risk, but are likely over 10%.
Alternatives to anticoagulation should be considered: Patient is at very high risk for major bleeding.