The interpretation of CHA2 DS2-VA score components in clinical practice: Data from Türkiye CHA2 DS2-VA skoru bileşenlerinin klinik uygulamadaki yorumlanması: Türkiye verileri
Pamukkale Medical Journal, cilt.19, sa.3, ss.547-557, 2026 (Scopus, TRDizin)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 19 Sayı: 3
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.31362/patd.1790457
- Dergi Adı: Pamukkale Medical Journal
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, Central & Eastern European Academic Source (CEEAS), TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM), Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.547-557
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Atrial fibrillation, CHA2 DS2-VA score, clinician survey, risk stratification, stroke risk
- Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
- Kütahya Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Purpose: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke, necessitating accurate risk stratification using validated tools such as the CHA2 DS2-VA score. Despite its widespread use, variability exists in clinicians’ interpretation and application of its components. To assess the understanding, interpretation, and practical application of the “C” (congestive heart failure/left ventricular systolic dysfunction), “H” (hypertension), “D” (diabetes mellitus), and “V” (vascular disease) components of the CHA2 DS2-VA score among clinicians in Türkiye, and to identify potential educational and informational needs. Materials and methods: Between July 15 and September 15, 2025, an online survey consisting of 10 multiple-choice questions was administered to physicians via WhatsApp. A total of 197 complete responses were analyzed. The survey assessed knowledge of component definitions, scoring practices, ease of application, and resources used for calculation. Results: Recognition was highest for the “D” criterion, while the “H” component showed moderate agreement. The “C” and particularly the “V” components demonstrated greater heterogeneity, including under-recognition of aortic aneurysm and misclassification of angina pectoris and varicose veins. Clinicians primarily relied on memory (46.7%) or online resources (38.6%), with 26.9% using web-based or mobile applications. Scoring ease varied, with the “V” criterion rated as most difficult. Conclusion: Clinicians are generally familiar with the CHA2 DS2-VA score, but interpretation of heart failure and vascular disease components is inconsistent. Targeted education, clearer operational definitions, and integration of validated risk calculators into electronic health records and mobile platforms may improve scoring accuracy, consistency, and stroke risk assessment in AF patients.