ArticleHeart and vessels2024
Clinical impact of Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding-Risk scores on clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the European Society of Cardiology Ischemic and Bleeding Risk Criteria for Risk Stratification After Endovascular Therapy in Japanese Patients With Lower Extremity Artery Disease.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Observational
- Association between the modified Japanese Version of High Bleeding Risk scores and clinical outcomes in Japanese patients with lower extremity artery disease undergoing endovascular treatment.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Antiplatelet Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Major bleeding increases the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation: insights from the SAKURA AF registry and RAFFINE registry.Heart and vessels · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High bleeding risk (HBR), as defined by the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria, has been recently reported to be associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events and cardiovascular events. We investigated the association between the ARC-HBR score and clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed 328 consecutive patients with stable CAD who underwent PCI between January 2017 and December 2020. We scored the ARC-HBR criteria by assigning 1 point to each major criterion and 0.5 points to each minor criterion. Patients were stratified into low (ARC-HBR score < 1), intermediate (1 ≤ ARC-HBR score < 2), and high (ARC-HBR score ≥ 2) bleeding-risk groups. The primary outcome measure was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. We compared the discriminative abilities of the ARC-HBR score with the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS2°P) and ARC-HBR score with Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto (CREDO-Kyoto) thrombotic risk score. The mean patient age was 70.1 ± 10.2 years (males, 76.8%). During the median follow-up period of 983 (618-1338) days, 44 patients developed MACE. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that a stepwise significant increase in the cumulative incidence of MACE as the ARC-HBR score increased (log-rank p < 0.001). In the time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis for predicting MACE within 2 years, the area under the curve (AUC) of the ARC-HBR score was significantly higher than that of the TRS2°P (AUC: 0.825 vs. 0.725, p value for the difference = 0.023) and similar to that of CREDO-Kyoto thrombotic risk score (AUC: 0.825 vs. 0.813, p value for the difference = 0.627). Conclusions: The ARC-HBR score adequately stratified future risk of MACE in patients with stable CAD who underwent PCI. The ARC-HBR score showed a higher discriminative ability for predicting mid-term MACE than the TRS2°P.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38842586What 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.