Why the study?
Does in-hospital major bleeding predict adverse clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
Does in-hospital major bleeding predict adverse clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
In-hospital major bleeding after acute coronary syndromes is a strong, independent predictor of long-term adverse outcomes, highlighting the importance of bleeding avoidance strategies.
Bleeding avoidance strategies merit evaluation in PCI; leaves open whether targeted interventions alter long-term outcomes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe the hazard of in-hospital major bleeding after acute coronary syndromes. RECENT FINDINGS: Long-term complications of early bleeding can extend to over 3 years beyond the index event. Nonaccess-site bleeding accounts for much of the higher risk associated with major in-hospital bleeding. SUMMARY: Bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention are a consistent and independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes. The majority of complications associated with major bleeding are attributable to in-hospital early bleeds. Whether the link between bleeding and increased mortality is causal has not been established. Bleeding may simply be a marker of higher comorbidity. When possible, bleeding should be avoided, and strategies such as use of risk scores, bivalirudin, vascular closure devices and radial access may decrease major bleeding. In the highest-risk patients, however, bleeding avoidance strategies may not be effective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choi et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: