ArticleTexas Heart Institute journal2024
Predictive Value of HAS-BLED and HEMORR2HAGES Bleeding Risk Scores After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious scoring systems have been developed to assess the risk of bleeding in medical settings. HAS-BLED and HEMORR2HAGES risk scores are commonly used to estimate bleeding risk in patients receiving anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation, but data on their predictive value in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited.
methodsThis study evaluated and compared the predictive abilities of the HAS-BLED and HEMORR2HAGES bleeding risk scores in all-comer patients undergoing PCI. The PARIS score, specifically designed for patients undergoing PCI, was used as a comparator. The scores were calculated at baseline and compared with the occurrence of events during a 2-year clinical follow-up period. Between 2015 and 2017, all consecutive patients undergoing PCI we re prospectively enrolled and divided into risk tertiles based on bleeding risk scores. The primary end points were hierarchical major bleeding events, defined by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 through 5, and patient-oriented composite end points according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification, which were assessed during the 2-year follow-up period.
resultsA total of 1,080 patients completed the follow-up period. Two years after index, 189 patients (17.5%) had experienced any bleeding, with 48 events (4.4%) classified as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5. All bleeding risk scores showed statistically significant predictive ability for bleeding events. The HEMORR2HAGES score (C statistic, 0.73) was more effective than the HAS-BLED score (C statistic, 0.66; P = .07) and the PARIS score (C statistic, 0.66; P = .06) in predicting risk of major bleeding. Patients in high-risk bleeding groups also experienced a higher incidence of patient-oriented composite end points.
conclusionsThe HEMORR2HAGES, HAS-BLED, and PARIS risk scores exhibited good predictive abilities for bleeding events following PCI. Patients at high risk of bleeding also demonstrated increased ischemic risk and higher mortality during the 2-year follow-up period.
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.