Key result
Patients identified as having high bleeding risk by the ARC-HBR criteria had a significantly higher rate of major bleeding at 1 year compared to non-high bleeding risk patients (3.6% vs. 0.5%).
Absolute Event Rate: 3.6% vs 0.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
This editorial reinforces the clinical utility of the ARC-HBR criteria for predicting bleeding risk in patients undergoing PCI, while highlighting ongoing efforts to simplify and adapt the criteria for specific populations.
Consortium (ARC) proposed a set of high bleeding risk (HBR) criteria to promote consistency across trials evaluating this vulnerable subset of patients. The ARC-HBR criteria were not necessarily developed as a clinical decision support tool, but rather comparisons between trials. This multistakeholder expert consensus document arbitrarily defined HBR as an estimated risk of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) Type 3 or 5 4% or a risk of intracranial hemorrhage 1% at 1 year. 4 Thereafter, several studies have addressed the applicability and
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saito et al. (2021) conducted an editorial in Coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (n=3,453). High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR criteria) vs. Non-High Bleeding Risk was evaluated on Major bleeding (BARC 3 or 5) at 1 year (p=<0.001). Patients identified as having high bleeding risk by the ARC-HBR criteria had a significantly higher rate of major bleeding at 1 year compared to non-high bleeding risk patients (3.6% vs. 0.5%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: