ArticleESC heart failure2020
Relative impact of bleedings over ischaemic events in patients with heart failure: insights from the CARDIONOR registry.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Major bleeding modifiers in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a systematic review.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Review
- Protective Effect of Irsogladine against Aspirin-Induced Mucosal Injury in Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Small Intestine.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Relative impact of bleedings over ischaemic events in patients with heart failure: insights from the CARDIONOR registry.ESC heart failure · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsMajor bleeding events in heart failure (HF) patients are poorly described. We sought to investigate the importance of major bleeding and its impact on outcomes in HF patients. METHODS AND
resultsWe analysed incident bleeding and ischaemic events during a 3 year follow-up in 2910 HF outpatients included in a prospective multicentre registry. Major bleeding was defined as a Type ≥3 bleed using the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition. Ischaemic event was a composite of ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Events were adjudicated by a blinded committee. At inclusion, most patients (89%) received at least one antithrombotic: anticoagulation (53.9%) and/or antiplatelet therapy (46.2%). Bleeding occurred in 111 patients {3 year cumulative incidence: 3.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0-4.3]} and ischaemic events in 102 patients [3 year cumulative incidence: 3.3% (95% CI 2.7-4.0)]. Most bleedings were Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3a (32.5%) or 3b (31.5%). Most frequent sites of bleeding were gastrointestinal (40.6%) and intracranial (27.9%). Variables associated with bleeding were atrial fibrillation [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.63 (95% CI 1.66-4.19), P < 0.0001], diabetes [HR = 1.62 (95% CI 1.11-2.38), P = 0.012], and older age [HR = 1.19 per 10 year increase (95% CI 1.00-1.41), P = 0.049]. Anticoagulation use was associated with a two-fold increase in the bleeding risk. Bleeding events as well as ischaemic events were strongly associated with subsequent mortality [adjusted HRs: 5.67 (4.41-7.29), P < 0.0001 and 4.29 (3.18-5.78), P < 0.0001, respectively].
conclusionsIn HF outpatients, antithrombotics are widely used. Bleeding occurs at a stable rate of 1.2% annually (as frequent as ischaemic events) and is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality (at least as severe as ischaemic events). Most events occurred in patients receiving anticoagulation. Knowledge of these findings may help physicians to manage antithrombotics in HF patients.
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.