PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
December 7, 2020Circulation Journal47 citationsOpen Access

Application of the Modified High Bleeding Risk Criteria for Japanese Patients in an All-Comers Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ― From the CREDO-Kyoto Registry Cohort-3 ―

Key Result

Patients meeting the Japanese high bleeding risk (J-HBR) criteria had a significantly higher 5-year cumulative incidence of BARC type 3 or 5 major bleeding compared to those without J-HBR (23.1% vs. 8.4%, HR 2.95).

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=13,258)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does the Japanese version of high bleeding risk (J-HBR) criteria predict bleeding outcomes in Japanese patients undergoing first PCI?

P
Population
13,258 consecutive Japanese patients undergoing their first percutaneous coronary intervention, followed for a median of 6.0 years to evaluate bleeding and ischemic outcomes.
E
Exposure
Classification by the Japanese version of high bleeding risk (J-HBR) criteria
C
Comparator
Patients without J-HBR criteria (no-HBR)
O
Outcome
Cumulative incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding at 1 and 5 yearssafety

The J-HBR criteria effectively identify Japanese patients at very high bleeding risk after PCI, capturing a larger proportion (64%) of the population than the standard ARC-HBR criteria.

Main Result

Hazard Ratio: 2.95 (95% CI 2.66–3.27)

Absolute Event Rate: 23.1% vs 8.4%

p-value: p=<0.0001

Limitations

  • Data were not available for some HBR criteria (e.g., bleeding diathesis, planned surgery on DAPT, NSAIDs/steroids use), potentially underestimating HBR prevalence.
  • Ascertainment bias for severe frailty due to reliance on hospital charts.
  • Potential selection bias, as patients with high bleeding risk might more often be averted from proceeding to PCI.
  • Survival bias might dilute the results of major bleeding.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of and expected bleeding event rate in patients with the Japanese version of high bleeding risk (J-HBR) criteria are currently unknown in real-world percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: We applied the J-HBR criteria in the multicenter CREDO-Kyoto registry cohort-3 that enrolled 13,258 consecutive patients who underwent first PCI. The J-HBR criteria included Japanese-specific major criteria such as heart failure, low body weight, peripheral artery disease and frailty in addition to the Academic Research Consortium (ARC)-HBR criteria. There were 8,496 patients with J-HBR, and 4,762 patients without J-HBR. The J-HBR criteria identified a greater proportion of patients with HBR than did ARC-HBR (64% and 48%, respectively). Cumulative incidence of the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding was significantly higher in the J-HBR group than in the no-HBR group (14.0% vs. 4.1% at 1 year; 23.1% vs. 8.4% at 5 years, P<0.0001). Cumulative 5-year incidence of BARC 3/5 bleeding was 25.1% in patients with ARC-HBR, and 23.1% in patients with J-HBR. Cumulative incidence of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke was also significantly higher in the J-HBR group than in the no-HBR group (6.9% vs. 3.6% at 1 year; 13.2% vs. 7.1% at 5 years, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The J-HBR criteria successfully identified those patients with very high bleeding risk after PCI, who represented 64% of patients in this all-comers registry.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

A 2020 study conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (n=13,258). Japanese version of high bleeding risk (J-HBR) criteria vs. No high bleeding risk (no-HBR) was evaluated on Major bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding (HR 2.95, 95% CI 2.66-3.27, p=<0.0001). Patients meeting the Japanese high bleeding risk (J-HBR) criteria had a significantly higher 5-year cumulative incidence of BARC type 3 or 5 major bleeding compared to those without J-HBR (23.1% vs. 8.4%, HR 2.95).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a8b8d9b52e1a91077e96b73https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.cj-20-0836
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper