ArticleTH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis2018
Comparison of ACUITY, CRUSADE, and GRACE Risk Scales for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients Treated with Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy.
Article in TH open : companion journal to thrombosis and haemostasis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- RURUS SURYAWAN Score: A Novel Scoring System to Predict 30-Day Mortality for Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a novel bleeding risk prediction tool for aspirin users with a low body mass index.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- LASSO-derived model for the prediction of bleeding in aspirin users.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Short- and long-term performance of risk calculation tools for mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Machine learning derived model for the prediction of bleeding in dual antiplatelet therapy patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Predictive Model of Internal Bleeding in Elderly Aspirin Users Using XGBoost Machine Learning.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2024Article
- Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Secondary Events Among Acute and Chronic Stable Myocardial Infarction Patients: Findings from a Managed Care Database.Cardiology and therapy · 2019Article
- A Practical Nomogram for Predicting the Bleeding Risk in Patients with a History of Myocardial Infarction Treating with Aspirin.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several reliable scales have been proposed for the management and prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) treated with dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We sought to compare the performance of three conventional risk scores to predict major bleeding (MB; such as ACUITY or CRUSADE), or major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE for GRACE). This study included 904 consecutive post-ACS patients from the single Korean study center who underwent coronary interventions, and were treated with DAPT. All three scores were calculated based on admission data. MB and MACE were collected at 30-day and 1-year follow-ups. MB was defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria (types 3-5), and MACE included all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke. MB occurred in 114 patients (12.6%) during 30 days, and 65 patients (7.2%) from 30 days till 1-year follow-up. MACE occurred in 28 (3.1%) and 72 (8.0%) patients during 30 and 30 days till 1 year, respectively. For 30 days MB, the discriminatory ability of ACUITY (AUC: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.81-0.86) and CRUSADE (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.79-0.84) was similar, and more reliable than GRACE (AUC: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.71-0.77;
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.