Risk score to predict serious bleeding in stable outpatients with or at risk of atherothrombosis

INSERM U-698 'Recherche Clinique en Athérothrombose', Department of Cardiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Bichat-Claude Bernard, 46 rue Henri Huchard, Paris Cedex, France.
European Heart Journal (Impact Factor: 14.72). 02/2010; 31(10):1257-65. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq021
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To develop a risk score to quantify bleeding risk in outpatients with or at risk of atherothrombosis.
We studied patients in the REACH Registry, a cohort of 68 236 patients with/at risk of atherothrombosis. The outcome of interest was serious bleeding (non-fatal haemorrhagic stroke or bleeding leading to hospitalization and transfusion) over 2 years. Risk factors for bleeding were assessed using modified regression analysis. Multiple potential scoring systems based on the least complex models were constructed. Competing scores were compared on their discriminative ability via logistic regression. The score was validated externally using the CHARISMA population. From a final cohort of 56 616 patients, 804 (1.42%, 95% confidence interval 1.32-1.52) experienced serious bleeding between baseline and 2 years. A nine-item bleeding risk score (0-23 points) was constructed (age, peripheral arterial disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, antiplatelets, oral anticoagulants, hypercholesterolaemia). Observed incidence of bleeding at 2 years was: 0.46% (score < or = 6); 0.95% (7-8); 1.25% (9-10); 2.76% (> or = 11). The score's discriminative performance was consistent in CHARISMA and REACH (c-statistics 0.64 and 0.68, respectively); calibration in the CHARISMA population was very good (modified Hosmer-Lemeshow c(2) = 4.74; P = 0.69).
Bleeding risk increased substantially with a score >10. This score can assist clinicians in predicting the risk of serious bleeding and making decisions on antithrombotic therapy in outpatients.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An accurate tool with good discriminative for bleeding would be useful to clinicians for improved management of all their patients. Bleeding risk models have been published but not externally validated in independent clinical data set. We chose the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) score to validate within a large, multisite community data set. The aim of the study was validation of this Bleeding Risk Score (BRS) tool among a subgroup of patients based on body mass index. This is a large-scale retrospective analysis of a current registry utilising data from a 37-hospital health system. The central repository of patients with coronary heart disease undergoing PCI between 1 June 2009 and 30 June 2012 was utilised to validate the NCDR PCI BRS among 4693 patients. The primary end point was major bleeding. Validation analysis calculating the receiver operating characteristic curve was performed. There were 143 (3%) major bleeds. Mean BRS was 14.7 (range 3-42). Incidence of bleeding by risk category: low (0.5%), intermediate (1.7%) and high risk (7.6%). Tool accuracy was poor to fair (area-under-the curve (AUC) 0.78 heparin, 0.65 bivalirudin). Overall accuracy was 0.71 (CI 0.66 to 0.76). Accuracy did not improve when confined to just the intermediate risk group (AUC 0.58; CI 0.55 to 0.67). Tool accuracy was the lowest among the low BMI group (AUC 0.62) though they are at increased risk of bleeding following PCI. Bleeding risk tools have low predictive value even among subgroups of patients at higher risk. Adjustment for anticoagulation use resulted in poor discrimination because bivalirudin differentially biases outcomes toward no bleeding. The current state of bleeding risk tools provide little support for diagnostic utility in regards to major bleeding and therefore have limited clinical applicability.
    01/2015; 2(1):e000088. DOI:10.1136/openhrt-2014-000088
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Although there is evidence that patients who experience major bleeding after an acute coronary event are at higher risk of death in the months after the event, the incidence and impact on outcome of bleeding beyond 1 year of follow-up in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) are largely unknown. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to assess the incidence, source, determinants, and prognostic impact of major bleeding in stable CAD. METHODS We prospectively included 4,184 consecutive CAD outpatients who were free from any myocardial infarction (MI) or coronary revascularization for > 1 year at inclusion. Follow-up was performed at 2 years, with major bleeding defined as a type >= 3 bleed using the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definition. RESULTS There were 51 major bleeding events during follow-up (0.6%/ year). Most events were BARC type 3a bleeds with 12 fatal bleeds (type 5). In most cases (54.9%), the site of bleeding was gastrointestinal. Major bleeding was significantly associated with mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.89; 95% confidence intervals: 1.73 to 4.83; p < 0.0001). The increased risk of bleeding associated with vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment was particularly evident when VKA was combined with an antiplatelet therapy (APT). In contrast, the risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or nonhemorrhagic stroke did not differ in patients who received VKA + APT versus patients on VKA alone. CONCLUSIONS In patients with stable CAD (i.e., > 1 year, with no acute events), major bleeding events are rare, but such events are an independent predictor of death. When oral anticoagulation is required, concomitant APT should not be prescribed in the absence of a recent cardiovascular event. (C) 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 10/2014; 64(14):1430-6. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.957 · 15.34 Impact Factor
  • [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. DOI:10.4330/wjc.v6.i11.1140 · 2.06 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014