Key result
Patients classified as ARC-HBR had a significantly higher rate of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding events at one year compared to non-HBR patients (4.2% vs 1.4%; p<0.001).
Absolute Event Rate: 4.2% vs 1.4%
p-value: p=<0.001
The ARC-HBR criteria successfully identify Japanese PCI patients at high risk for bleeding, consolidating the clinical value of this standardized definition in contemporary practice.
Bleeding events impact negatively on prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) whether they are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or not1,2. Identifying high bleeding risk (HBR) patients has crucial implications for clinical and pharmacological management and for prognosis. Some trials assessing different stent platforms and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) have been conducted or are ongoing in these delicate patients; however, the lack of standardisation in defining HBR patients inevitably limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision making. The Academic Research Consortium for HBR (ARC-HBR) recently proposed criteria to standardise the definition of HBR for use in ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gargiulo et al. (2021) conducted an editorial in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=6,267). ARC-HBR (High Bleeding Risk) classification vs. Non-ARC-HBR classification was evaluated on BARC 3 or 5 bleeding events at one year (p=<0.001). Patients classified as ARC-HBR had a significantly higher rate of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding events at one year compared to non-HBR patients (4.2% vs 1.4%; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: