ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2018
Reversing the "Risk-Treatment Paradox" of Bleeding in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Risk-Concordant Use of Bleeding Avoidance Strategies Is Associated With Reduced Bleeding and Lower Costs.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2018. 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.
- Is the folk medicine known as "The Secret" efficient in reducing bleeding after percutaneous coronary procedures?: a double-blinded, randomised trial.Open heart · 2022Trial
- Best practices for vascular arterial access and closure: a contemporary guide for the cardiac catheterization laboratory.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Reversing the "Risk-Treatment Paradox" of Bleeding in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Risk-Concordant Use of Bleeding Avoidance Strategies Is Associated With Reduced Bleeding and Lower Costs.Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Bleeding is a common, morbid, and costly complication of percutaneous coronary intervention. While bleeding avoidance strategies ( BAS ) are effective, they are used paradoxically less in patients at high risk of bleeding. Whether a patient-centered approach to specifically increase the risk-concordant use of BAS and, thus, reverse the risk-treatment paradox is associated with reduced bleeding and costs is unknown. Methods and Results We implemented an intervention to reverse the bleeding risk-treatment paradox at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO, and examined: (1) the temporal trends in BAS use and (2) the association of risk-concordant BAS use with bleeding and hospital costs of percutaneous coronary intervention. Among 3519 percutaneous coronary interventions, there was a significantly increasing trend ( P=0.002) in risk-concordant use of BAS . The bleeding incidence was 2% in the risk-concordant group versus 9% in the risk-discordant group (absolute risk difference, 7%; number needed to treat, 14). Risk-concordant BAS use was associated with a 67% (95% confidence interval, 52-78%; P<0.001) reduction in the risk of bleeding and a $4738 (95% confidence interval, 3353-6122; P<0.001) reduction in per-patient percutaneous coronary intervention hospitalization costs (21.6% cost-savings). Conclusions In this study, patient-centered care directly aimed to make treatment-related decisions based on predicted risk of bleeding, led to more risk-concordant use of BAS and reversal of the risk-treatment paradox. This, in turn, was associated with a reduction in bleeding and hospitalization costs. Larger multicentered studies are needed to corroborate these results. As clinical medicine moves toward personalization, both patients and hospitals can benefit from a simple practice change that encourages objectivity and mitigates variability in care.
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.