American Society of Hirudotherapy

Is the ORBIT Bleeding Risk Score Superior to the HAS-BLED Score in Anticoagulated Atrial Fibrillation Patients?.

Research article published in Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society (2016)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Observational studyClinical TrialsEsteve-Pastor et al. · Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society, 2016

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several bleeding risk scores have been validated in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The ORBIT score has been recently proposed as a simple score with the best ability to predict major bleeding. The present study aimed to test the hypothesis that the ORBIT score was superior to the HAS-BLED score for predicting major bleeding and death in "real world" anticoagulated AF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed the predictive performance for bleeding and death of 406 AF patients who underwent 571 electrical cardioversion procedures and 1,276 patients with permanent/persistent AF from the FANTASIIA registry. In the cardioversion population, 21 patients had major bleeding events and 26 patients died. The predictive performance for major bleeding of HAS-BLED and ORBIT were not significantly different (c-statistics 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.88) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77-0.93), respectively; P=0.080). For the FANTASIIA population, 46 patients had major bleeding events and 50 patients died. The predictive performances for major bleeding of HAS-BLED and ORBIT were not significantly different (c-statistics 0.63 (95% CI 0.56-0.71) and 0.70 (95% CI 0.62-0.77), respectively; P=0.116). For death, the predictive performances of HAS-BLED and ORBIT were not significantly different in both populations. The ORBIT score categorized most patients as "low risk". CONCLUSIONS: Despite the original claims in its derivation paper, the ORBIT score was not superior to HAS-BLED for predicting major bleeding and death in a "real world" oral anticoagulated AF population. (Circ J 2016; 80: 2102-2108).

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleMulticenter Study
Indexed MeSH termsAgedAged, 80 and overAtrial FibrillationElectric CountershockFemaleHemorrhageHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRegistriesRisk Assessment

Summary

Is the ORBIT Bleeding Risk Score Superior to the HAS-BLED Score in Anticoagulated Atrial Fibrillation Patients?.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This validation study tested whether the ORBIT bleeding-risk score outperformed HAS-BLED in real-world anticoagulated atrial fibrillation patients across a cardioversion cohort and the FANTASIIA registry, and found no statistically significant difference between the two scores for predicting major bleeding or death. Its relevance to hirudotherapy is indirect and contextual: it belongs to the systemic-anticoagulation and bleeding-risk literature ASH curates to situate the leech secretome story within mainstream antithrombotic practice, but it does not address leech therapy, hirudin, or any leech-derived compound. The appropriate caveat is that this is an observational predictive-modeling study about risk scores in AF patients, with no bearing on the efficacy or safety of medicinal leeching.

Citation

Is the ORBIT Bleeding Risk Score Superior to the HAS-BLED Score in Anticoagulated Atrial Fibrillation Patients?.

Esteve-Pastor et al. · Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society, 2016

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.