Key result
ARC-HBR status linked to ~184% higher one-year bleeding risk versus non-HBR patients.
Why the study?
Bleeding after PCI has important prognostic implications, and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) definition for patients at high bleeding risk required validation in a contemporary real-world cohort.
Does the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) High Bleeding Risk (HBR) definition accurately predict 1-year bleeding and thrombotic events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Cohort (n=9,623)
No
Does the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) High Bleeding Risk (HBR) definition accurately predict 1-year bleeding and thrombotic events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Absolute Event Rate: 9.1% vs 3.2%
p-value: p=<0.001
The ARC-HBR definition effectively stratifies bleeding and thrombotic risk in contemporary PCI patients, with additive prognostic value when multiple criteria are met.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Identifies HBR patients for heightened post-PCI bleeding vigilance; leaves open whether tailored regimens improve net outcomes.
Cao et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing coronary stenting (PCI) (n=9,623). High Bleeding Risk (HBR) status per ARC definition vs. Non-HBR status was evaluated on Composite of peri-procedural in-hospital or post-discharge bleeding at 1 year (p=<0.001). Patients meeting the ARC-HBR definition had significantly higher rates of bleeding at 1 year compared to non-HBR patients (9.1% vs 3.2%, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: