Patients meeting the ARC-HBR definition had significantly higher rates of bleeding at 1 year compared to non-HBR patients (9.1% vs 3.2%, p<0.001).
Cohort (n=9,623)
No
Does the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) High Bleeding Risk (HBR) definition accurately predict 1-year bleeding and thrombotic events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
9,623 patients undergoing coronary stenting between 2014 and 2017 at a tertiary-care center.
Classification as High Bleeding Risk (HBR) according to the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) definition (meeting at least 1 major or 2 minor ARC-HBR criteria).
Non-HBR patients (did not meet ARC-HBR criteria).
Composite of peri-procedural in-hospital or post-discharge bleeding at 1 year.composite
The ARC-HBR definition effectively stratifies bleeding and thrombotic risk in contemporary PCI patients, with additive prognostic value when multiple criteria are met.
Absolute Event Rate: 9.1% vs 3.2%
p-value: p=<0.001
BACKGROUND Bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention has important prognostic implications. The Academic Research Consortium (ARC) recently proposed a list of clinical criteria to define patients at high bleeding risk (HBR). OBJECTIVES This study sought to validate the ARC definition for HBR patients in a contemporary real-world cohort. METHODS Patients undergoing coronary stenting between 2014 and 2017 at a tertiary-care center were defined as HBR if they met at least 1 major or 2 minor ARC-HBR criteria. To account for the presence of multiple criteria, patients were further stratified by the number of times they fulfilled the ARC-HBR definition. The primary endpoint was a composite of peri-procedural in-hospital or post-discharge bleeding at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the primary bleeding endpoint, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS Among 9,623 patients, 4,278 (44.4%) qualified as HBR. Moderate or severe anemia was the most common major criterion (33.2%); age ≥75 years was the most frequent minor criterion and the most common overall (46.8%). The rate of the primary bleeding endpoint at 1 year was 9.1% in HBR patients compared with 3.2% in non-HBR patients (p < 0.001), with a stepwise increase in bleeding risk corresponding to the number of times the ARC-HBR definition was fulfilled. HBR patients also experienced significantly higher rates of all secondary endpoints. CONCLUSIONS This study validates the ARC-HBR definition in a contemporary group of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. The ARC-HBR definition identified patients at increased risk not only for bleeding but also for thrombotic events, including all-cause mortality. Coexistence of multiple ARC-HBR criteria showed additive prognostic value.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Davide Cao
Interventional Cardiology
Roxana Mehran
Interventional Cardiology
George Dangas
Interventional Cardiology
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
University of Florida
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Duke Medical Center
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Cao et al. (Mon,) conducted a cohort in Patients undergoing coronary stenting (PCI) (n=9,623). High Bleeding Risk (HBR) status per ARC definition vs. Non-HBR status was evaluated on Composite of peri-procedural in-hospital or post-discharge bleeding at 1 year (p=<0.001). Patients meeting the ARC-HBR definition had significantly higher rates of bleeding at 1 year compared to non-HBR patients (9.1% vs 3.2%, p<0.001).
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0690c1eefd33dea44b6f81 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.070