American Society of Hirudotherapy

A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey

Research article published in Chest (2010)

Last Updated: November 1, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Observational studyClinical LiteraturePisters et al. · Chest, 2010

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite extensive use of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and the increased bleeding risk associated with such OAC use, no handy quantification tool for assessing this risk exists. We aimed to develop a practical risk score to estimate the 1-year risk for major bleeding (intracranial, hospitalization, hemoglobin decrease > 2 g/L, and/or transfusion) in a cohort of real-world patients with AF. METHODS: Based on 3,978 patients in the Euro Heart Survey on AF with complete follow-up, all univariate bleeding risk factors in this cohort were used in a multivariate analysis along with historical bleeding risk factors. A new bleeding risk score termed HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, Elderly (> 65 years), Drugs/alcohol concomitantly) was calculated, incorporating risk factors from the derivation cohort. RESULTS: Fifty-three (1.5%) major bleeds occurred during 1-year follow-up. The annual bleeding rate increased with increasing risk factors. The predictive accuracy in the overall population using significant risk factors in the derivation cohort (C statistic 0.72) was consistent when applied in several subgroups. Application of the new bleeding risk score (HAS-BLED) gave similar C statistics except where patients were receiving antiplatelet agents alone or no antithrombotic therapy, with C statistics of 0.91 and 0.85, respectively. CONCLUSION: This simple, novel bleeding risk score (HAS-BLED) provides a practical tool to assess the individual bleeding risk of real-world patients with AF, potentially supporting clinical decision making regarding antithrombotic therapy in patients with AF.

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

Publication typeComparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsAgedAtrial FibrillationEuropeFemaleFibrinolytic AgentsFollow-Up StudiesHemorrhageHumansIncidenceMalePlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPopulation SurveillancePrognosisProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsStroke

Summary

From 3,978 Euro Heart Survey patients with atrial fibrillation, the authors derived the HAS-BLED score (Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/alcohol); predictive accuracy for 1-year major bleeding showed an overall C statistic of 0.72.

Context

This comparative study developed and validated the HAS-BLED score to assess the 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation. The study focuses on clinical risk factors for hemorrhage in patients on standard oral anticoagulation to aid clinical decision-making. It does not mention leeches, hirudotherapy, or the leech secretome in any capacity.

Citation

Reference (Vancouver style)

Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, de Vos CB, Crijns HJ, Lip GY. A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest. 2010;138(5):1093-1100. doi:10.1378/chest.10-0134. PMID: 20299623

Bibliographic details (authors, volume, pages, DOI) are taken from the PubMed record.

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: November 1, 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.