Key result
Simplified CRUSADE score accurately predicts in-hospital major bleeding in NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI.
Why the study?
Evaluation of the CRUSADE risk score to predict in-hospital bleeding was needed in Asian patients undergoing contemporary PCI for NSTEMI.
Does the CRUSADE score accurately predict in-hospital major bleeding in NSTEMI patients treated with PCI?
Observational (n=5,882)
Yes
Does the CRUSADE score accurately predict in-hospital major bleeding in NSTEMI patients treated with PCI?
The full and simplified CRUSADE scores performed well in predicting in-hospital major bleeding in Thai NSTEMI patients treated with PCI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports simplified CRUSADE for bleeding prediction in NSTEMI-PCI; extends validation to Asian cohorts but remains hypothesis-generating.
BACKGROUND: The Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) score has been recommended to predict in-hospital bleeding risk in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients. The evaluation of the CRUSADE risk score in Asian patients undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for NSTEMI is necessary. AIMS: We aimed to validate and update the CRUSADE score to predict in-hospital major bleeding in NSTEMI patients treated with PCI. METHOD: The Thai PCI registry is a large, prospective, multicenter PCI registry in Thailand enrolling patients between May 2018 and August 2019. The CRUSADE score was calculated based on 8 predictors including sex, diabetes, prior vascular disease (PVD), congestive heart failure (CHF), creatinine clearance (CrCl), hematocrit, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate (HR). The score was fitted to in-hospital major bleeding using the logistic regression. The original score was revised and updated for simplification. RESULTS: Of 19,701 patients in the Thai PCI registry, 5976 patients presented with NSTEMI. The CRUSADE score was calculated in 5882 patients who had all variables of the score available. Thirty-five percent were female, with a median age of 65.1 years. The proportion of diabetes, PVD, and CHF was 46%, 7.9%, and 11.2%, respectively. The original and revised models of the CRUSADE risk score had C-statistics of 0.817 (95% CI: 0.762-0.871) and 0.839 (95% CI: 0.789-0.889) respectively. The simplified CRUSADE score which contained only four variables (hematocrit, CrCl, HR, and CHF), had C-statistics of 0.837 (0.787-0.886). The calibration of the recalibrated, revised, and simplified model was optimal. CONCLUSIONS: The full and simplified CRUSADE scores performed well in NSTEMI treated with PCI in Thai population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chichareon et al. (2024) conducted an observational in NSTEMI (n=5,882). CRUSADE score was evaluated on In-hospital major bleeding (C-statistic 0.837, 95% CI 0.787-0.886). The simplified CRUSADE score accurately predicted in-hospital major bleeding in NSTEMI patients undergoing PCI (C-statistic 0.837; 95% CI 0.787-0.886).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: