ArticleInternational journal of cardiology2024
Incidence and outcomes of high bleeding risk patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction in a community-based cohort: Application of the Academic Research Consortium High Bleeding Risk Criteria.
Article in International journal of cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: Navigating Diagnostic Pathways and Therapeutic Crossroads Between Invasive and Conservative Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Post-discharge major bleeding/all-cause death in acute coronary syndrome: academic research consortium criteria versus Japan-specific criteria.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe incidence and outcomes of high bleeding risk (HBR) patients in a community cohort according to the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) criteria is not known. We hypothesized that HBR is common and associated with worse outcomes for all-comers with myocardial infarction.
methodsWe prospectively collected all patients with cardiac troponin T > 99th percentile upper limit of normal (≥0.01 ng/mL) in Olmsted County between 2003 and 2012. Events were retrospectively classified as type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI), type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI), or myocardial injury. Patients were further classified as HBR based on the "ARC-HBR definition." Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, recurrent MI, stroke, and major bleeding.
results2419 patients were included in the final study; 1365 were classified as T1MI and 1054 as T2MI. Patients were followed for a median of 5.5 years. ARC-HBR was more common in T2MI than T1MI (73% vs 46%, p < 0.001). Among patients with T1MI, HBR was associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 3.7, 95% CI 3.2-4.5, p < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (4.7, 3.6-6.3, p < 0.001), recurrent MI (2.1, 1.6-2.7, p < 0.001), stroke (4.9, 2.9-8.4, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (6.5, 3.7-11.4, p < 0.001). For T2MI, HBR was similarly associated with higher all-cause mortality (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.8-2.5, p < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (2.7, 1.8-4.0, p < 0.001), recurrent MI (1.7, 1.1-2.6, p = 0.02) and major bleeding (HR 15.6, 3.8-63.8, p < 0.001).
conclusionHBR is common among unselected patients with T1MI and T2MI and is associated with increased overall and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent cardiovascular events, and major bleeding on long-term follow up.
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.