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.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Assessment of Predictive Performance of PRECISE-DAPT, CRUSADE, and ACUITY Scores in Risk Stratifying 30-Day Bleeding Events.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2020Trial
- In Hospital Assessment and Management of High Bleeding Risk in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI).Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Personalized Treatment of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: The Value and Limitations of Predictive Models.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Proenkephalin improves cardio-renal risk prediction in acute coronary syndromes: the KID-ACS score.European heart journal · 2025Article
- Association of Prognostic Nutritional Index with Post-Discharge Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ACS Patients on DAPT.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Article
- Risk analysis and risk prediction of in-hospital heart failure in patients with acute myocardial infarction after emergency intervention surgery.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Sex Differences in Bleeding Risk Associated With Antithrombotic Therapy Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Circulation reports · 2024Review
- Comparison between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in myocardial infarction patients with high bleeding risk.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2023Article
- The Performance of Risk Scores for Bleeding and Ischemia as Outcome Predictors in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2022Article
- External validation of the SWEDEHEART score for predicting in-hospital major bleeding among East Asian patients with acute myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- In-hospital major bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome medically treated with dual anti-platelet therapy: Associated factors and impact on mortality.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Derivation and validation of a model to predict acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery in patients with normal renal function.Renal failure · 2021Article
- Incidence and predictors of serious bleeding during long-term follow-up after acute coronary syndrome in a population-based cohort study.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Validation of the 4-Item PRECISE-DAPT Score: A SWEDEHEART Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Development and Validation of Nomogram to Predict Long-Term Prognosis of Critically Ill Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Model for In-Hospital Bleeding in Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Algorithm Development and Validation.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Article
- Development and Validation of a Novel Risk Score for In-Hospital Major Bleeding in Acute Myocardial Infarction:-The SWEDEHEART Score.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.