Aims: To compare the performance of the CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION risk models in the STsegment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods: We studied all consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent PPCI at our institution between 2006 and 2010 (n=1391). The CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION risk scores were calculated based on the patients' clinical characteristics. The occurrence of in-hospital major bleeding (defined as the composite of intracranial or intraocular bleeding, access site haemorrhage requiring intervention, reduction in haemoglobin ≥4 g/dl without or ≥3g/dl with overt bleeding source, reoperation for bleeding, or blood transfusion) reached 9.8%. Calibration and discrimination of the three risk models were evaluated by the Hosmer−Lemeshow test and the C-statistic, respectively. We compared the predictive accuracy of the risk scores by the DeLong non-parametric test. Results: Calibration of the three risk scores was adequate, given the non-significant results of Hosmer−Lemeshow test for the three risk models. Discrimination of CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION models was good (C-statistic 0.77, 0.70, and 0.78, respectively). The CRUSADE and ACTION risk scores had a greater predictive accuracy than the respectively). There was no significant difference between the CRUSADE and ACTION models (z=0.63, p=0.531). Conclusions: The CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION scores are useful tools for the risk stratification of bleeding in STEMI treated by PPCI. Our findings favour the CRUSADE and ACTION risk models over the ACUITY-HORIZONS risk score.

Late graft failure is frequent after heart transplantation, as it is associated with poor outcomes. Rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy are the most frequent underlying causes.

No abstract

No abstract