Talk:CHA2DS2–VASc score
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Comments
hi all. Looking ath algorithm, it looks like you must have a systolic blood pressure > 160 to qualify and score a point. This is not the case. the CHADS2 scoringin system is to include a point for anyone with hypertension which defitionally is now a BP >140/90 or in Diabetics or kidney patients 130>180 Thisuser (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
not accurate
This is not accurate info based on the 2006 ACC recommendations and should not be used. I would recommend going directly to ACC.org and looking at the newest recommendations. Specifically, any pt with a CHADS score of 2 should be on a/c, and not asa alone. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.7 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You have not interpreted the "annual risk of stroke" properly. The Gage article you quote states
"The stroke rate per 100 patient-years without antithrombotic therapy increased by a factor of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.3-1.7) for each 1-point increase in the CHADS2 score: 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2-3.0) for a score of 0; 2.8 (95% CI, 2.0-3.8) for 1; 4.0 (95% CI, 3.1-5.1) for 2; 5.9 (95% CI, 4.6-7.3) for 3; 8.5 (95% CI, 6.3-11.1) for 4; 12.5 (95% CI, 8.2-17.5) for 5; and 18.2 (95% CI, 10.5-27.4) for 6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.91.58 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Could you explain your point more? Also, were you referring to the previous comment or the present form of the article? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe I can. And I was referring to the present form of the article. Above the chart the risk of stroke is given as an annual risk PER PERSON whereas the original article by Gage gives those numbers as the risk PER 100 PERSON YEARS. -Ravi
Does CHADS2 score consider fall risks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.19.80 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Nope. It doesn't consider specific contraindications at all.
Regarding the article, the new CHA2DS2-VASc mentions thromboembolism under S2. Is that talking about arterial, or venous too? (I can't find any useful information about this). 118.90.14.22 (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The table under the CHA2DS2-VASc section for Annualized Stroke Risk is based on a source that doesn't mention the new CHA2DS2-VASc (focuses on CHADS2 only), so I don't understand how the table was constructed. Am I missing something? Myoglobin (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
add stroke risk reduction with anticoag
the table with risk for stroke is nice but risk reduction with anticoag should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.40.12.37 (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Hi, I was wondering if someone had a source for "Note that female gender only scores one point if the patient has at least one other risk factor, and does not score any points in isolation." I couldn't find it in any of the source material or my own searches. Yogasund (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 11 March 2015
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved to CHA2DS2–VASc score. This is a very old RM, with no action for several weeks. Two favour the "CHA2DS2–VASc score" title, while the nom also mentions that is is a contender. (non-admin closure) — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
CHADS2 score → CHADS score – This article is about both CHADS2 score and CHA2DS2-VASc score, and the latter one is preferred. Therefore, we should move this page to the common denominator of both scoring systems, and after that explain CHA2DS2-VASc first and then the older CHADS2 at the end of the article. --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- It may be worth considering moving to CHA2DS2-VASc score as that is now the preferred/current prediction rule (i.e. the most recognizable), but maintain the chronological order of development of the score from CHADS2 → CHA2DS2-VASc within the article? Johnson twj (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Support proposal by Johnson twj - Within the medical field a shift has occured towards pereferential use of the CHA2DS2-VASc score due to its more superior predictive value for Strokes and Thromboembolisms. This is reflected well within the literature. Mbcap (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.