ArticleHeart and vessels2021
Prevalence of the Academic Research Consortium high bleeding risk criteria in patients undergoing endovascular therapy for peripheral artery disease in lower extremities.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular Impact of Endovascular Revascularization in Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia Versus Claudication: A Contemporary Real-World Analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Impact of body mass index on mortality, limb amputation, and bleeding in patients with lower extremity artery disease undergoing endovascular therapy.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Two-year outcomes of endovascular therapy for femoropopliteal arterial lesions for patients with high bleeding risk.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2024Article
- Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia is a Residual Bleeding Risk Factor among Patients with Lower Extremity Artery Disease.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2024Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Academic Research Consortium (ARC) recently published a definition of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the prevalence of the ARC-HBR criteria in patients undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT) for peripheral artery disease in lower extremities has not been thoroughly investigated. This study sought to investigate the prevalence and impact of the ARC-HBR criteria in patients undergoing EVT. We analyzed 277 consecutive patients who underwent their first EVT from July 2011 to September 2019. We applied the full ARC-HBR criteria to the study population. The primary end point was a composite outcome of all-cause mortality, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding, and lower limb amputation within 12 months of EVT. Among the 277 patients, 193 (69.7%) met the ARC-HBR criteria. HBR patients had worse clinical outcomes compared with non-HBR patients at 12 months after EVT, including a higher incidence of the composite primary outcome (19.2% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) and all-cause death (7.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.007). In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, presence of the ARC-HBR criteria [hazard ratio (HR) 4.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-13.80, p = 0.020], body mass index (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.27, p = 0.042), diabetes mellitus (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.28-5.69, p = 0.009), hyperlipidemia (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.80, p = 0.009), and infrapopliteal lesions (HR 3.51, 95% CI 1.63-7.56, p = 0.001) were independent predictors of the primary composite outcome. Approximately 70% of Japanese patients undergoing EVT met the ARC-HBR criteria, and its presence was strongly associated with adverse outcomes within 12 months of EVT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33651134What 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.