Key result
The PARIS risk score showed similar discrimination to PRECISE-DAPT for 1-year BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (c-statistic 0.63 vs 0.61; p=0.29) but provided a higher net benefit in decision curve analyses.
Why the study?
Does the PARIS risk score outperform the PRECISE-DAPT risk score for predicting one-year out-of-hospital bleeding in ACS patients treated with PCI and DAPT?
Cohort (n=1,926)
Does the PARIS risk score outperform the PRECISE-DAPT risk score for predicting one-year out-of-hospital bleeding in ACS patients treated with PCI and DAPT?
Effect estimate: c-statistic 0.63 vs 0.61
p-value: p=0.29
Both PARIS and PRECISE-DAPT risk scores are moderately effective for predicting one-year bleeding in ACS patients on DAPT, with PARIS showing a higher net benefit in risk classification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Modest discrimination by PRECISE-DAPT and PARIS scores warrants clinical caution in ACS-PCI patients; leaves open need for superior risk tools.
Abu‐Assi et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in acute coronary syndrome (n=1,926). PARIS risk score vs. PRECISE-DAPT risk score was evaluated on One-year BARC type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding (c-statistic 0.63 vs 0.61, p=0.29). The PARIS risk score showed similar discrimination to PRECISE-DAPT for 1-year BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (c-statistic 0.63 vs 0.61; p=0.29) but provided a higher net benefit in decision curve analyses.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: