Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30803289›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2019

Development and Validation of a Novel Risk Score for In-Hospital Major Bleeding in Acute Myocardial Infarction:-The SWEDEHEART Score.

Moa Simonsson, Henric Winell, Henrik Olsson, Karolina Szummer, Joakim Alfredsson, Marlous Hall, Tatendashe B Dondo, Chris P Gale, Tomas Jernberg

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Validation of the 4-Item PRECISE-DAPT Score: A SWEDEHEART Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Moa Simonsson1 Department of Clinical Sciences Karolinska Institutet Danderyd Sweden.
Henric Winell3 Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Karolinska Institutet Solna Sweden.
Henrik Olsson3 Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Karolinska Institutet Solna Sweden.
Karolina Szummer2 Department of Cardiology Karolinska University Hospital Solna Sweden.
Joakim Alfredsson6 Department of Cardiology Department of Medical and Health Sciences Linköping University Linköping Sweden.
Marlous Hall7 Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine University of Leeds United Kingdom.
Tatendashe B Dondo7 Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine University of Leeds United Kingdom.
Chris P Gale7 Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine University of Leeds United Kingdom.
Tomas Jernberg1 Department of Clinical Sciences Karolinska Institutet Danderyd Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SEUniversity of Leeds · GBKarolinska University Hospital · SELinköping University · SEUppsala University · SE

Funding

Wellcome Trust 206470/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Bleeding risk stratification in acute coronary syndrome is of highest clinical interest but current risk scores have limitations. We sought to develop and validate a new in-hospital bleeding risk score for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results From the nationwide SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) register, 97,597 patients with acute myocardial infarction enrolled from 2009 until 2014 were selected. A full model with 23 predictor variables and 8 interaction terms was fitted using logistic regression. The full model was approximated by a model with 5 predictors and 1 interaction term. Calibration, discrimination, and clinical utility was evaluated and compared with the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Ad verse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC /AHA Guidelines) scores. Internal and temporal validity was assessed. In-hospital major bleeding, defined as fatal, intracranial, or requiring surgery or blood transfusion, occurred in 1356 patients (1.4%). The 5 predictors in the approximate model that constituted the SWEDEHEART score were hemoglobin, age, sex, creatinine, and C-reactive protein. The ACTION and CRUSADE scores were poorly calibrated in the derivation cohort and therefore were recalibrated. The SWEDEHEART score showed higher discriminative ability than both recalibrated scores, overall ( C-index 0.80 versus 0.73/0.72) and in all predefined subgroups. Decision curve analysis demonstrated consistently positive and higher net benefit for the SWEDEHEART score compared with both recalibrated scores across all clinically relevant decision thresholds. The original ACTION and CRUSADE scores showed negative net benefit. Conclusions The 5-item SWEDEHEART score discriminates in-hospital major bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction and has superior model performance compared with the recalibrated ACTION and CRUSADE scores.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesNomogramsAgedAged, 80 and overAnticoagulantsComorbidityFemaleHealth StatusHemorrhageHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPatient AdmissionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsAnticoagulantsPlatelet Aggregation Inhibitorsacute myocardial infarctionbleedingregistryrisk score

Identifiers

PMID30803289
PMCPMC6474938
OpenAlexW2915400351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.