Search

Background: Various scoring systems have been developed to assess the risk of bleeding in medical settings. HAS-BLED and HEMORR2HAGES risk scores are commonly used to estimate bleeding risk in patients receiving anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, but data on their predictive value in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited., Methods: This study evaluated and compared the predictive abilities of the HAS-BLED and HEMORR2HAGES bleeding risk scores in all-comer patients undergoing PCI. The PARIS score, specifically designed for patients undergoing PCI, was used as a comparator. The scores were calculated at baseline and compared with the occurrence of events during a 2-year clinical follow-up period. Between 2015 and 2017, all consecutive patients undergoing PCI we re prospectively enrolled and divided into risk tertiles based on bleeding risk scores. The primary end points were hierarchical major bleeding events, defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 through 5, and patient-oriented composite end points according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification, which were assessed during the 2-year follow-up period., Results: A total of 1,080 patients completed the follow-up period. Two years after index, 189 patients (17.5%) had experienced any bleeding, with 48 events (4.4%) classified as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5. All bleeding risk scores showed statistically significant predictive ability for bleeding events. The HEMORR2HAGES score (C statistic, 0.73) was more effective than the HAS-BLED score (C statistic, 0.66; P = .07) and the PARIS score (C statistic, 0.66; P = .06) in predicting risk of major bleeding. Patients in high-risk bleeding groups also experienced a higher incidence of patient-oriented composite end points., Conclusions: The HEMORR2HAGES, HAS-BLED, and PARIS risk scores exhibited good predictive abilities for bleeding events following PCI. Patients at high risk of bleeding also demonstrated increased ischemic risk and higher mortality during the 2-year follow-up period., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by The Texas Heart Institute®.)

Background: The Academic Research Consortium have identified a set of major and minor risk factors in order to standardize the definition of a High Bleeding Risk (ACR-HBR). Aims: The aim of this study is to stratify the bleeding risk in patients included in the Cardio-Fribourg registry, according to the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ACR-HBR) definition, and to report ischemic and hemorrhagic events at 2-year of clinical follow-up. Methods: Between 2015 and 2017, consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were prospectively included in the Cardio-Fribourg registry. Patients were considered high (HBR) or low (LBR) bleeding risk depending on the ARC-HBR definition. Primary endpoints were hierarchical major bleeding events as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5, and ARC patient-oriented major adverse cardiac events (POCE) at 2-year follow-up. Results: Follow-up was complete in 1,080 patients. There were 354 patients in the HBR group (32.7%) and 726 patients in the low-bleeding risk (LBR) group (67.2%). At 2-year follow-up, cumulative BARC 3-5 bleedings were higher in HBR (10.5%) compared to LBR patients (1.5%, p < 0.01) and the impact of HBR risk factors was incremental. At 2-year follow-up, POCE were more frequent in HBR (27.4%) compared to LBR group (18.2%, <0.01). Overall mortality was higher in HBR (14.0%) vs. LBR (2.9%, p < 0.01). Conclusions: ARC-HBR criteria appropriately identified a population at a higher risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention. An increased risk of bleeding is also associated with an increased risk of ischemic events at 2-year follow-up., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Doomun, Doomun, Schukraft, Arroyo, Cook, Huwyler, Wenaweser, Stauffer, Goy, Togni, Puricel and Cook.)

Background: The Academic Research Consortium has identified a set of major and minor risk factors in order to standardize the definition of a high bleeding risk (ACR-HBR). Oral anticoagulation is a major criterion frequently observed. Aims: The objective of this study is to quantify the risk of bleeding in patients on oral anticoagulation with at least one additional major ACR-HBR criteria in the Cardio-Fribourg Registry. Methods: Between 2015 and 2017, consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were prospectively included in the Cardio-Fribourg registry. The study population included patients with ongoing long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) and planned to receive triple antithrombotic therapy. Patients were divided in two groups: patients on OAC with at least one additional major ACR-HBR criteria vs. patients on OAC without additional major ACR-HBR criteria. The primary endpoint was any bleeding during the 24-month follow-up. Secondary bleeding endpoint was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Classification (BARC) ≥3. Results: Follow-up was completed in 142 patients at high bleeding risk on OAC, of which 33 (23%) had at least one additional major ACR-HBR criteria. The rate of the primary endpoint was 55% in patients on OAC with at least one additional ACR-HBR criteria compared with 14% in patients on OAC without additional ACR-HBR criteria (hazard ratio, 3.88; 95%CI, 1.85-8.14; p < 0.01). Patients with additional major ACR-HBR criteria also experienced significantly higher rates of BARC ≥ 3 bleedings (39% at 24 months). Conclusion: The presence of at least one additional ACR-HBR criterion identifies patients on OAC who are at very high risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Schukraft, Huwyler, Ottiger-Mankaka, Lehmann, Cook, Doomun, Doomun, Goy, Stauffer, Togni, Arroyo, Puricel and Cook.)