Why the study?
Do the ARC-HBR criteria improve the identification of future bleeding risk compared to contemporary bleeding risk scores in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Do the ARC-HBR criteria improve the identification of future bleeding risk compared to contemporary bleeding risk scores in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
The ARC-HBR criteria provide higher sensitivity but lower specificity than contemporary risk scores for predicting bleeding in patients undergoing PCI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
ARC-HBR may aid post-PCI bleeding detection via higher sensitivity; leaves open net benefit versus other scores in prospective validation.
Patients at HBR defined by the ARC-HBR criteria had a higher risk of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding as well as DOCE. The bleeding risk was related to its individual components. The ARC-HBR criteria were more sensitive for identifying patients with future bleedings than other contemporary risk scores at the cost of specificity. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02241291
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ueki et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: