Search

This study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of the REACH, PARIS, BleeMACS, and PRECISE-DAPT scores in Chinese patients undergoing coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. A total of 1911 patients undergoing coronary DES implantation were consecutively recruited and followed up for 1 year. The primary endpoints were BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding and BARC type 2,3, or 5 bleeding. The BleeMACS score and the PRECISE-DAPT score were significantly associated with 1-year incidence of BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding, but not BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The discrimination of the PRECISE-DAPT score was moderate for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (c-statistic = 0.633), while those of the REACH (c-statistic = 0.533), PARIS (c-statistic = 0.553), and BleeMACS scores (c-statistic = 0.613) were relatively low. However, the analysis of c-statistic, NRI, and IDI detected no significant discrimination improvement of the PRECISE-DAPT score for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding compared to the other three scores. The calibrations of the PRECISE-DAPT and BleeMACS scores were modest (Hosmer-Lemeshow test p > .05). Decision curve analysis indicated net benefit of the PRECISE-DAPT score in bleeding risk evaluation. In conclusion, the PRECISE-DAPT score performed moderately in predicting BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding, while the discriminative capacities of the REACH, PARIS, BleeMACS scores were relatively low in patients undergoing DES implantation. But no significant discrimination improvement of the PRECISE-DAPT score compared to the other scores could be detected. Further studies are required to develop standardized bleeding risk scores for this population.

This study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of the REACH, PARIS, BleeMACS, and PRECISE-DAPT scores in Chinese patients undergoing coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. A total of 1911 patients undergoing coronary DES implantation were consecutively recruited and followed up for 1 year. The primary endpoints were BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding and BARC type 2,3, or 5 bleeding. The BleeMACS score and the PRECISE-DAPT score were significantly associated with 1-year incidence of BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding, but not BARC type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The discrimination of the PRECISE-DAPT score was moderate for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (c-statistic = 0.633), while those of the REACH (c-statistic = 0.533), PARIS (c-statistic = 0.553), and BleeMACS scores (c-statistic = 0.613) were relatively low. However, the analysis of c-statistic, NRI, and IDI detected no significant discrimination improvement of the PRECISE-DAPT score for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding compared to the other three scores. The calibrations of the PRECISE-DAPT and BleeMACS scores were modest (Hosmer-Lemeshow test p >.05). Decision curve analysis indicated net benefit of the PRECISE-DAPT score in bleeding risk evaluation. In conclusion, the PRECISE-DAPT score performed moderately in predicting BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding, while the discriminative capacities of the REACH, PARIS, BleeMACS scores were relatively low in patients undergoing DES implantation. But no significant discrimination improvement of the PRECISE-DAPT score compared to the other scores could be detected. Further studies are required to develop standardized bleeding risk scores for this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundRecently, the Age–Bleeding–Organ Dysfunction (ABO) algorithm was recommended by the Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Consensus as a binary approach to evaluate bleeding risk. This analysis made comparison of the predictive performances between the PRECISE-DAPT and ABO bleeding score in identifying the risk of 12-months major bleeding in Chinese elderly patients over 65 years old patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during dual-antiplatelet therapy period.MethodsA total of 2,037 elderly coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (≥65 years) receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI were enrolled in the study. The predictive accuracy of the two bleeding risk scores (PRECISE-DAPT and ABO) was compared for identifying the risk of bleeding during the dual-antiplatelet therapy in patients who underwent PCI. Major clinically relevant bleeding events were defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria.ResultsThe PRECISE-DAPT score in the no bleeding, BARC = 1 bleeding, BARC ≥ 2 bleeding patients was 23.55 ± 10.46, 23.23 ± 10.03, and 33.54 ± 14.33 (p < 0.001), respectively. Meanwhile, the ABO score in the three groups was 0.72 ± 0.80, 0.69 ± 0.81, and 1.49 ± 0.99 (p < 0.001), respectively. The C-statistic of the PRECISE-DAPT model for prediction of BARC ≥ 2 bleeding in overall patients was 0.717 (95% CI, 0.656–0.777) and 0.720 (95% CI, 0.656–0.784) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Similar discriminatory capacity was demonstrated in the ABO risk score [overall, patients, AUC: 0.712 (95% CI, 0.650–0.774); ACS patients, AUC: 0.703 (95% CI, 0.634–0.772)]. No differences were observed when the ABO model was in comparison with the PRECISE-DAPT model, regardless in overall patients (z = −0.199, p = 0.842) or ACS patients (z = −0.605, p = 0.545). The calibration for BARC ≥ 2 bleeding of the PRECISE-DAPT and ABO score were acceptable, regardless in overall patients [goodness-of-fit (GOF) Chi-square = 0.432 and 0.001, respectively; p-value = 0.806 and 0.999, respectively] or ACS patients (GOF Chi-square = 0.008 and 0.580, respectively; p-value = 0.996 and 0.748, respectively).ConclusionNo matter of clinical presentation in Asian 65-years older patients with DAPT, the PRECISE-DAPT, and ABO scores had the similar discriminative ability for 12-months BARC ≥ 2 bleeding. Considering the simplicity and reliability, the PRECISE-DAPT score might be more clinically applicable in the overall population and ACS patients in bleeding prediction.

Copyright of Osmangazi Journal of Medicine / Osmangazi Tip Dergisi is the property of Eskisehir Osmangazi University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Concomitant use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents can increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleed (GIB). Use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) has been proposed to decrease the risk of GIB in patients on combined antithrombotic therapy (CAT). Objective: To describe the current utilization of PPIs in veteran patients on CAT and associated clinical predictors of GIB. Methods: This retrospective study included patients on CAT receiving PPIs, with at least one of the CAT agents initiated between January 1, 2018 and October 30, 2018. Data were extracted from the computerized patient record system. Primary end point included estimating proportion of patients on CAT receiving PPI co‐therapy, describing patient characteristics, and identifying clinical predictors of GIB. Secondary outcomes included reporting GIB events and all‐cause mortality. Additional outcome was to validate the five‐factor risk score (FFRS) for GIB in patients on CAT and compare its overall predictive performance to HAS‐BLED score. Results: This study reports an overall rate of PPI co‐therapy in patients on CAT of 40.9% (484/1181), with only 22.3% of patients on CAT receiving PPI for GIB prophylaxis. There was no difference in the mean follow up duration of PPI users and PPI co‐therapy (264.01 vs 271.92 days; p=0.3761). Current alcohol use (p=0.005), current smokers (p=0.022), chronic kidney disease (p=0.004), peptic ulcer disease (p<0.001), and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug use (p=0.048) were significant predictors of GIB in multivariate analyses of our study cohort. We further provide exploratory validation that use of a simplified FFRS to predict GIB showed a trend towards better overall predictive performance as compared to HAS‐BLED score (C‐statistic: 0.738; 95% CI 0.684–0.787 for FFRS vs C‐statistic: 0.596; 95% CI 0.538–0.653 for HAS‐BLED; p=0.0094). Conclusion: This study reports lower rate of PPI co‐therapy in veteran patients on CAT per currently available guidance. Further we explore utilization of simplified FFRS model to predict GIB in patients on CAT with long‐term PPI co‐therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Non valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is highly prevalent among chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients in whom it portends increased risk for subsequent stroke or systemic thromboembolic events. For these high risk patients oral anticoagulation is recommended, after proper assessment of both thromboembolic and bleeding risk is accurately ascertained. However, current NVAF risk scores are inadequate for use in CKD subjects, since they do not take into account the occurrence and the degree of renal function impairment. Aim of this review was therefore to provide the reader with an analytical review of each risk factor included in the available risk scores systems, as well as the evaluation of the accuracy of currently adopted score systems for either bleeding or ischemic event risk prediction in patients with CKD. On the basis of available data from literature, reclassifying those patients categorized at low-risk, for whom the presence of renal impairment may be the only predictor for future adverse events emerges as a compelling unmet need. Accordingly, a new risk score calculator, specific for CKD patients is also provided. Highlights • CKD as a risk factor for thromboembolism in Atrial Fibrillation • Analysis of current thromboembolic and bleeding risk scores • Risk factors for thromboembolism/bleeding in CKD Patients • A new risk calculator for CKD patients? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Oral anticoagulation is the mainstay of stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but must be balanced against the associated bleeding risk. Several risk scores have been proposed for prediction of bleeding events in patients with AF.Objectives: To compare the performance of contemporary clinical bleeding risk scores in 18 113 patients with AF randomized to dabigatran 110 mg, 150 mg or warfarin in the RE-LY trial.Methods: HAS-BLED, ORBIT, ATRIA and HEMORR2 HAGES bleeding risk scores were calculated based on clinical information at baseline. All major bleeding events were centrally adjudicated.Results: There were 1182 (6.5%) major bleeding events during a median follow-up of 2.0 years. For all the four schemes, high-risk subgroups had higher risk of major bleeding (all P < 0.001). The ORBIT score showed the best discrimination with c-indices of 0.66, 0.66 and 0.62, respectively, for major, life-threatening and intracranial bleeding, which were significantly better than for the HAS-BLED score (difference in c-indices: 0.050, 0.053 and 0.048, respectively, all P < 0.05). The ORBIT score also showed the best calibration compared with previous data. Significant treatment interactions between the bleeding scores and the risk of major bleeding with dabigatran 150 mg BD versus warfarin were found for the ORBIT (P = 0.0019), ATRIA (P < 0.001) and HEMORR2 HAGES (P < 0.001) scores. HAS-BLED score showed a nonsignificant trend for interaction (P = 0.0607).Conclusions: Amongst the current clinical bleeding risk scores, the ORBIT score demonstrated the best discrimination and calibration. All the scores demonstrated, to a variable extent, an interaction with bleeding risk associated with dabigatran or warfarin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) is recommended for all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as it significantly reduces the ischemic risk at the cost of increasing the incidence of bleeding events. Several clinical predictive models were developed to better stratify the bleeding risk associated with DAT. This systematic review aims to perform a literature survey of both standard and emerging bleeding risk scores and report their performance on predicting hemorrhagic events, especially in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stents and more potent P2Y12 inhibitors. We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases for full-text studies that developed or validated bleeding risk scores in adult patients undergoing PCI with subsequent DAT. The risk of bias for each study was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Eighteen studies were included in the present systematic review. Bleeding risk scores showed a modest to good discriminatory power with c-statistic ranging from 0.49 (95% CI, 0.45–0.53) to 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80–0.85). Clinical models that predict in-hospital bleeding events had a relatively good predictive performance, with c-statistic ranging from 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67–0.72) to 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73–0.87), depending on the risk scores and major hemorrhagic event definition used. The knowledge and utilization of the current bleeding risk scores in appropriate clinical contexts could improve the prediction of bleeding events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bleeding is a common and feared complication of oral anticoagulant therapy. Several prediction models have been recently developed, but there is a lack of evidence in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). The aim of this study was to validate currently available bleeding risk scores during long-term oral anticoagulation for VTE. We retrospectively included adult patients on vitamin K antagonists for VTE secondary prevention, followed by five Italian Anticoagulation Clinics (Cuneo, Livorno, Mantova, Napoli, Varese), between January 2010 and August 2012. All bleeding events were classified as major bleeding (MB) or clinically-relevant-non-major-bleeding (CRNMB). A total of 681 patients were included (median age 63 years; 52.0% female). During a mean follow-up of 8.82 (± 3.59) months, 50 bleeding events occurred (13 MB and 37 CRNMB), for an overall bleeding incidence of 9.99/100 patient-years. The rate of bleeding was higher in the first three months of treatment (15.86/100 patient-years) than afterwards (7.13/100 patient-years). The HAS-BLED showed the best predictive value for bleeding complications during the first three months of treatment (area under the curve [AUC] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.78), while only the ACCP score showed a modest predictive value after the initial three months (AUC 0.61, 95%CI 0.51-0.72). These two scores had also the highest sensitivity and the highest negative predictive value. None of the scores predicted MB better than chance. Currently available bleeding risk scores had only a modest predictive value for patients with VTE. Future studies should aim at the creation of a new prediction rule, in order to better define the risk of bleeding of VTE patients.