Why the study?
The Age-Bleeding-Organ Dysfunction (ABO) algorithm was recently recommended to evaluate bleeding risk, but its predictive performance compared to the PRECISE-DAPT score in elderly Chinese patients undergoing PCI on DAPT was unestablished.
Does the PRECISE-DAPT score improve prediction of 12-months BARC ≥ 2 bleeding compared to the ABO score in Chinese elderly patients receiving DAPT after PCI?
Does the PRECISE-DAPT score improve prediction of 12-months BARC ≥ 2 bleeding compared to the ABO score in Chinese elderly patients receiving DAPT after PCI?
The PRECISE-DAPT and ABO scores demonstrated similar and acceptable discriminative ability for predicting 12-month major bleeding in Chinese elderly patients receiving DAPT after PCI.
Similar performance suggests caution against preferring either score; extends validation to Chinese elderly post-PCI but leaves open clinical utility.
Background Recently, the Age–Bleeding–Organ Dysfunction (ABO) algorithm was recommended by the Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Consensus as a binary approach to evaluate bleeding risk. This analysis made comparison of the predictive performances between the PRECISE-DAPT and ABO bleeding score in identifying the risk of 12-months major bleeding in Chinese elderly patients over 65 years old patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during dual-antiplatelet therapy period. Methods A total of 2,037 elderly coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (≥65 years) receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after PCI were enrolled in the study. The predictive accuracy of the two bleeding risk scores (PRECISE-DAPT and ABO) was compared for identifying the risk of bleeding during the dual-antiplatelet therapy in patients who underwent PCI. Major clinically relevant bleeding events were defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. Results The PRECISE-DAPT score in the no bleeding, BARC = 1 bleeding, BARC ≥ 2 bleeding patients was 23.55 ± 10.46, 23.23 ± 10.03, and 33.54 ± 14.33 ( p < 0.001), respectively. Meanwhile, the ABO score in the three groups was 0.72 ± 0.80, 0.69 ± 0.81, and 1.49 ± 0.99 ( p < 0.001), respectively. The C-statistic of the PRECISE-DAPT model for prediction of BARC ≥ 2 bleeding in overall patients was 0.717 (95% CI, 0.656–0.777) and 0.720 (95% CI, 0.656–0.784) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Similar discriminatory capacity was demonstrated in the ABO risk score [overall, patients, AUC: 0.712 (95% CI, 0.650–0.774); ACS patients, AUC: 0.703 (95% CI, 0.634–0.772)]. No differences were observed when the ABO model was in comparison with the PRECISE-DAPT model, regardless in overall patients ( z = −0.199, p = 0.842) or ACS patients ( z = −0.605, p = 0.545). The calibration for BARC ≥ 2 bleeding of the PRECISE-DAPT and ABO score were acceptable, regardless in overall patients [goodness-of-fit (GOF) Chi-square = 0.432 and 0.001, respectively; p -value = 0.806 and 0.999, respectively] or ACS patients (GOF Chi-square = 0.008 and 0.580, respectively; p -value = 0.996 and 0.748, respectively). Conclusion No matter of clinical presentation in Asian 65-years older patients with DAPT, the PRECISE-DAPT, and ABO scores had the similar discriminative ability for 12-months BARC ≥ 2 bleeding. Considering the simplicity and reliability, the PRECISE-DAPT score might be more clinically applicable in the overall population and ACS patients in bleeding prediction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dong et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: