Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

REVIEW article

Front. Cardiovasc. Med.

Sec. Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Research progress on bleeding risk assessment models in anticoagulant therapy

Provisionally accepted
Li  SenLi Sen*Xiong  KangpinXiong KangpinLiu  YihuiLiu Yihui*
  • Department of Pharmacy, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Balancing thromboembolic prevention against bleeding complications remains a critical challenge in anticoagulant therapy. While established bleeding risk assessment models (RAMs) such as HAS-BLED and HEMORR2HAGES were initially developed for warfarin-treated patients, their applicability to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) users and venous thromboembolism (VTE) populations remained uncertain. This review synthesized recent advancements in bleeding risk stratification for atrial fibrillation (AF) and VTE patients, focusing on model performance, drug-specific adaptations, and emerging biomarker-driven approaches. For AF patients, traditional RAMs (HAS-BLED, HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA) demonstrated moderate predictive accuracy (AUC: 0.55–0.74) in NOAC cohorts, with HEMORR2HAGES showing superior discrimination in certain studies. The biomarker-integrated ABC (incorporating GDF-15, troponin, hemoglobin) and the NOAC-specific DOAC score, have shown improved risk stratification, with the latter demonstrating a higher C-statistic than HAS-BLED. In VTE populations, the IMPROVE (AUC: 0.62– 0.73) effectively identified high-risk medical inpatients, while the RIETE (major bleeding incidence: 0.1%–6.2%) and EINSTEIN (C-statistic: 0.68–0.74) addressed dynamic risks during anticoagulation. However, heterogeneity in validation cohorts, endpoint definitions (e.g., ISTH vs. TIMI criteria), and static risk factor selections limited cross-model generalizability. Current RAMs exhibited variable performance across anticoagulant regimens and clinical contexts highlighting the need for next-generation models that integrate dynamic risk modifiers (e.g., transient anemia, antiplatelet use) and biomarker-based approaches. While NOAC-specific tools such as the DOAC may be more appropriate for AF patients, context-adapted models like IMPROVE and RIETE are better suited for VTE populations. Future research should prioritize real-world validation, machine learning integration, and the standardization of bleeding definitions to advance precision anticoagulation strategies.

Keywords: Anticoagulant therapy, bleeding risk assessment models, Atrial Fibrillation, Venous Thromboembolism, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Received: 16 Jun 2025; Accepted: 27 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Sen, Kangpin and Yihui. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Li Sen, lisentome728@hotmail.com
Liu Yihui, kafkaliu@163.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.