ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Post-discharge major bleeding/all-cause death in acute coronary syndrome: academic research consortium criteria versus Japan-specific criteria.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe differentiation of the Academic Research Consortium high bleeding risk (HBR) (ARC-HBR) criteria and those modified for Japanese patients (J-HBR) for predicting events following discharge in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has yet to be clarified. In this study, we compared the ARC-HBR and J-HBR criteria for predicting post-discharge bleeding and associated events in patients with ACS.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 889 patients with ACS discharged alive at two tertiary hospitals in Japan between August 2009 and July 2018. We identified patients with HBR using both sets of criteria. We compared the incidence of major bleeding/all-cause death within 2 years following discharge and performance metrics between each set of criteria, and explored the efficacy of combining both sets of criteria to stratify risk levels for the prediction of clinical events.
resultsEighty patients experienced major bleeding/all-cause death. In the ARC-HBR and J-HBR criteria, 51% and 65% of patients were categorized as HBR, respectively. Both sets of criteria effectively identified patients at a high risk of major bleeding/all-cause death. The ARC-HBR demonstrated a significantly higher area under the curve (AUC) for major bleeding and all-cause death combined (AUC [95% confidence interval]: 0.67 [0.64-0.69]) than that of the J-HBR (0.63 [0.60-0.66], P = 0.015). In each component, while the AUC for major bleeding was comparable between the two sets of criteria (0.61 [0.57-0.64] vs. 0.61 [0.57-0.63], P = 0.95), the ARC-HBR criteria showed a significantly higher AUC for all-cause death than the J-HBR criteria (0.67 [0.64-0.70] vs. 0.61 [0.59-0.64], P < 0.001). The combined use of both sets of criteria effectively stratified the risk for major bleeding/all-cause death (hazard ratio [95% confident interval]: 5.81 [2.79-12.07] in those positive for both sets of criteria, compared to those negative in both sets of criteria).
conclusionsThe ARC-HBR criteria demonstrated a greater discriminative capability for predicting major bleeding/all-cause mortality than the J-HBR criteria. For major bleeding alone, the discriminative ability of both sets of criteria was comparable.
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.