Machine Learning - Based Bleeding Risk Predictions in Atrial Fibrillation Patients on Direct Oral Anticoagulants

ImportanceAccurately predicting major bleeding events in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is crucial for personalized treatment and improving patient outcomes, especially with emerging alternatives like left atrial appendage closure devices. The left atrial appendage closure devices reduce stroke risk comparably but with significantly fewer non-procedural bleeding events. ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of machine learning (ML) risk models in predicting clinically significant bleeding events requiring hospitalization and hemorrhagic stroke in non-valvular AF patients on DOACs compared to conventional bleeding risk scores (HAS-BLED, ORBIT, and ATRIA) at the index visit to a cardiologist for AF management. DesignPrognostic modeling with retrospective cohort study design using electronic health record (EHR) data, with clinical follow-up at one-, two-, and five-years. SettingUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) system. Participants24,468 non-valvular AF patients aged [&ge;]18 years treated with DOACs, excluding those with prior history of significant bleeding, other indications for DOACs, on warfarin or contraindicated to DOACs. Exposure(s)DOAC therapy for non-valvular AF. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)The primary endpoint was clinically significant bleeding requiring hospitalization within one year of index visit. The models incorporated demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables available in the EHR at the index visit. ResultsAmong 24,468 patients, 553 (2.3%) had bleeding events within one year, 829 (3.5%) within two years, and 1,292 (5.8%) within five years of index visit. We evaluated multivariate logistic regression and ML models including random forest, classification trees, k-nearest neighbor, naive Bayes, and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) which modestly outperformed HAS-BLED, ATRIA, and ORBIT scores in predicting clinically significant bleeding at 1-year follow-up. The best performing model (random forest) showed area under the curve (AUC-ROC) 0.76 (0.70-0.81), G-Mean score of 0.67, net reclassification index 0.14 compared to 0.57 (0.50-0.63), G-Mean score of 0.57 for HASBLED score, p-value for difference <0.001. The ML models had improved performance compared to conventional risk across time-points of 2-year and 5-years and within the subgroup of hemorrhagic stroke. SHAP analysis identified novel risk factors including measures from body mass index, cholesterol profile, and insurance type beyond those used in conventional risk scores. Conclusions and RelevanceOur findings demonstrate the superior performance of ML models compared to conventional bleeding risk scores and identify novel risk factors highlighting the potential for personalized bleeding risk assessment in AF patients on DOACs.