Comparison of original and modified Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk definitions in real-world practice

Takahashi, Kotaro; Miura, Katsuya; Yuki, Satoshi; Okabe, Keisuke; Ikuta, Akihiro; Taguchi, Yuya; Ohya, Masanobu; Kubo, Shunsuke; Tada, Takeshi; Tanaka, Hiroyuki; Fuku, Yasushi; Kadota, Kazushige

doi:10.1016/j.jjcc.2022.02.018

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The J-HBR score comprises more risk factors than the other risk scores and identified a greater proportion of patients with HBR. In line with previous studies, 19 , 26 , 27 , 28 the J-HBR score was more sensitive than other bleeding risk scores in the present study and may be a highly effective screening tool for patients with HBR. Thus, patients identified as non-HBR according to the J-HBR score could be considered to have a low risk of bleeding.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“… 19 , 25 – 28 We observed few major bleeding events in the non-HBR group according to the J-HBR and ARC-HBR scores, which may have contributed to the higher discriminative ability of those scores. The reason for fewer major bleeding events in our study could be the limited use of the transfemoral approach (28% vs. 58–76% in previous studies) 19 , 25 – 27 and the smaller incidence of acute coronary syndrome (52.2% vs. 100% in a previous study). 28 In the CREDO-Kyoto registry cohort 3, 29 the cumulative incidence of major bleeding events in the HBR group according to the J-HBR criteria within 1 year was higher than in our study (14.0% vs. 8.8% within 1 year, respectively), regardless of whether the proportion of patients with HBR was similar (64% vs. 66.3%, respectively).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

“…In contrast to previous studies, 19,25-28 the AUC values in the present study for the J-HBR, ARC-HBR, and PRECISE-DAPT scores were higher (0.77-0.86 vs. 0.61-0.75 in previous studies). 19,[25][26][27][28] We observed few major bleeding events in the non-HBR group according to the J-HBR and ARC-HBR scores, which may have contributed to the higher discriminative ability of those scores. The reason for fewer major bleeding events in our study could be the limited use of the transfemoral approach (28% vs. 58-76% in previous studies) 19,25-27 and the smaller incidence of acute coronary syndrome (52.2% vs. 100% in a previous study).…”

Section: Roc Curve Analysis For Primary Outcome Measurementioning

confidence: 76%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of Discriminative Ability of Bleeding Risk Criteria and Scores for Predicting Short- and Mid-Term Major Bleeding Events in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Shimono,

Tokushige,

Kanda

et al. 2024

Circ Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aimed to compare the discriminative ability of the Japanese Version of High Bleeding Risk (J-HBR), Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR), and Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) scores for predicting major bleeding events. Methods and Results: Between January 2017 and December 2020, 646 consecutive patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled. We scored the ARC-HBR and J-HBR criteria by assigning 1 point to each major criterion and 0.5 point to each minor criterion. The primary outcome was major bleeding events, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding events. According to the J-HBR, ARC-HBR, and PRECISE-DAPT scores, 428 (66.3%), 319 (49.4%), and 282 (43.7%) patients respectively had a high bleeding risk. During the follow-up period (median, 974 days), 44 patients experienced major bleeding events. The area under the curve (AUC) using the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve for major bleeding events was 0.84, 0.82, and 0.83 within 30 days and 0.86, 0.83, and 0.80 within 2 years for the J-HBR, ARC-HBR, and PRECISE-DAPT scores, respectively. The AUC values did not differ significantly among the 3 bleeding risk scores. Conclusions: The J-HBR score had a discriminative ability similar to the ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT scores for predicting short- and mid-term major bleeding events.

show abstract