Article

Baseline risk of major bleeding in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) Bleeding Score.

Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.95). 04/2009; 119(14):1873-82. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.828541
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Treatments for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) reduce ischemic events but increase bleeding. Baseline prediction of bleeding risk can complement ischemic risk prediction for optimization of NSTEMI care; however, existing models are not well suited for this purpose.
We developed (n=71 277) and validated (n=17 857) a model that identifies 8 independent baseline predictors of in-hospital major bleeding among community-treated NSTEMI patients enrolled in the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Model performance was tested by c statistics in the derivation and validation cohorts and according to postadmission treatment (ie, invasive and antithrombotic therapy). The CRUSADE bleeding score (range 1 to 100 points) was created by assignment of weighted integers that corresponded to the coefficient of each variable. The rate of major bleeding increased by bleeding risk score quintiles: 3.1% for those at very low risk (score < or = 20); 5.5% for those at low risk (score 21-30); 8.6% for those at moderate risk (score 31-40); 11.9% for those at high risk (score 41-50); and 19.5% for those at very high risk (score >50; P(trend) <0.001). The c statistics for the major bleeding model (derivation=0.72 and validation=0.71) and risk score (derivation=0.71 and validation=0.70) were similar. The c statistics for the model among treatment subgroups were as follows: > or = 2 antithrombotics=0.72; <2 antithrombotics=0.73; invasive approach=0.73; conservative approach=0.68.
The CRUSADE bleeding score quantifies risk for in-hospital major bleeding across all postadmission treatments, which enhances baseline risk assessment for NSTEMI care.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
217 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assessment of ischemic and bleeding risk is critical for the management of elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes, but it has been little studied.
    Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia (English Edition). 10/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute coronary syndromes presenting with ST elevation are usually treated with emergency reperfusion/revascularisation therapy. In contrast current evidence and national guidelines recommend risk stratification for non ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with the decision on revascularisation dependent on perceived clinical risk. Risk stratification for STEMI has no recommendation. Statistical risk scoring techniques in NSTEMI have been demonstrated to improve outcomes however their uptake has been poor perhaps due to questions over their discrimination and concern for application to individuals who may not have been adequately represented in clinical trials. STEMI is perceived to carry sufficient risk to warrant emergency coronary intervention [by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)] even if this results in a delay to reperfusion with immediate thrombolysis. Immediate thrombolysis may be as effective in patients presenting early, or at low risk, but physicians are poor at assessing clinical and procedural risks and currently are not required to consider this. Inadequate data on risk stratification in STEMI inhibits the option of immediate fibrinolysis, which may be cost-effective. Currently the mode of reperfusion for STEMI defaults to emergency angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention ignoring alternative strategies. This review article examines the current risk scores and evidence base for risk stratification for STEMI patients. The requirements for an ideal STEMI risk score are discussed.
    World journal of cardiology. 08/2014; 6(8):865-73.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Major bleeding is currently one of the most common non-cardiac complications observed in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Hemorrhagic complications occur with a frequency of 1% to 10% during treatment for ACS. In fact, bleeding events are the most common extrinsic complication associated with ACS therapy. The identification of clinical characteristics and particularities of the antithrombin therapy associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic complications would make it possible to adopt prevention strategies, especially among those exposed to greater risk. The international societies of cardiology renewed emphasis on bleeding risk stratification in order to decide strategy and therapy for patients with ACS. With this review, we performed an update about the ACS bleeding risk scores most frequently used in daily clinical practice.
    World Journal of Cardiology (WJC) 11/2014; 6(11):1140-1148. · 2.06 Impact Factor