ArticleEBioMedicine2017
CRUSADE Score is Superior to Platelet Function Testing for Prediction of Bleeding in Patients Following Coronary Interventions.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety of Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel in the Contemporary Management Through Invasive or Non-Invasive Strategies of Elderly Patients Presenting with Acute Coronary Syndromes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Bleeding Complications of Anticoagulation Therapy Used in the Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndromes-Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of ACUITY, CRUSADE, and GRACE Risk Scales for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients Treated with Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy.TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypothetically, diminished platelet reactivity (PR) during dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) should cause extra major bleeding events (MBE), although definite evidence is lacking. Multiple scores have been proposed to stratify bleeding risk, but their predictive value during DAPT is unclear. We compared the performance of the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) with PR testing to predict MBE in Korean patients with acute coronary syndrome. We screened 1105, and included 903 consecutive patients who underwent coronary interventions. All patients received DAPT, while MBE were assessed by BARC scale. Admission platelet reactivity was assessed with VerifyNow Analyzer simultaneously with CRUSADE score, and MBE were collected at 1month and at 1year post stenting. There were a total of 113 (11%) MBE at 1month, and extra 41(5%) MBE at 1year. At 1month MBE prediction was superior by CRUSADE score (AUC: 0.816, 95% CI: 0.79 0.84, p<0.0001), compared to PR (AUC: 0.605, 95% CI: 0.572-0.637, p=0.0007). Moreover, CRUSADE score remains the independent predictor of MBE by multivariate analyses (OR=2.94, 95% CI: 2.18-3.96, p<0.0001). At 1year MBE also correlated, but were not significantly different between admission CRUSADE score (AUC: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.58 0.66, p=0.0183) and PR (AUC: 0.674, 95% CI: 0.63-0.71, p=0.002). We conclude that MBE are more common in real life than reported in clinical trials. CRUSADE score was superior to PR testing for predicting short-term, but not 1year MBE in Korean patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with DAPT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.