Key result
The ARC-HBR criteria demonstrated a high sensitivity of 72.9% and an AUC of 0.63 for predicting 7-year major bleeding events, performing equivalently to or better than other contemporary risk scores.
Why the study?
The ARC-HBR defined consensus clinical criteria for high bleeding risk during PCI, but validation and comparison against contemporary risk scores for long-term bleeding outcomes remained needed.
Does the ARC-HBR criteria improve the prediction of long-term bleeding events compared to contemporary risk scores in patients undergoing PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents?
Cohort (n=3,410)
No
Does the ARC-HBR criteria improve the prediction of long-term bleeding events compared to contemporary risk scores in patients undergoing PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.63% vs 0.61%
p-value: p=0.17
The ARC-HBR criteria demonstrated higher sensitivity for predicting long-term (7-year) major bleeding events after PCI compared to other contemporary risk scores, supporting its utility for long-term risk stratification.
ARC-HBR criteria show higher sensitivity for long-term bleeding post-PCI than other scores; leaves open optimal use for DAPT decisions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Okabe et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (n=3,410). ARC-HBR criteria vs. Contemporary bleeding risk scores (PRECISE-DAPT, PARIS, CREDO-Kyoto) was evaluated on Predictability of 7-year BARC 3 or 5 bleeding events (AUC) (p=0.17). The ARC-HBR criteria demonstrated a high sensitivity of 72.9% and an AUC of 0.63 for predicting 7-year major bleeding events, performing equivalently to or better than other contemporary risk scores.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: