Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40560847›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Towards a dynamic model to estimate evolving risk of major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Nathan C Hurley, Nihar Desai, Sanket S Dhruva, Rohan Khera, Wade Schulz, Chenxi Huang, Jeptha Curtis, Frederick Masoudi, John Rumsfeld, Sahand Negahban and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Nathan C HurleyDepartment of Computer Science & Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3055-8825
Nihar DesaiCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Sanket S DhruvaUniversity of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0674-2032
Rohan KheraCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Wade SchulzLaboratory Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Chenxi HuangCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Jeptha CurtisCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Frederick MasoudiAscension, St Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5681-6709
John RumsfeldDepartment of Medicine (Cardiology), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America.
Sahand NegahbanDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Harlan M KrumholzCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America.
Bobak J MortazaviDepartment of Computer Science & Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2655-2095

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While static risk models may identify key driving risk factors, the dynamic nature of risk requires up-to-date risk information to guide treatment decision making. Bleeding is a complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and existing risk models produce only a single risk estimate anchored at a single point in time, despite the dynamic nature of this risk. Using data available from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI, we trained 6 different tree-based machine learning models to estimate the risk of bleeding at key decision points: 1) choice of access site, 2) prescription of medication before PCI, and 3) choice of closure device. We began with 3,423,170 PCIs performed between July 2009 through April 2015. We included only index PCIs and removed anyone who had missing data regarding bleeding events or underwent coronary artery bypass grafting during the index admission. We included 2,868,808 PCIs; 2,314,446 (80.7%) before 2014 for training and 554,362 (19.3%) remaining for validation. This study considered all data available from the Registry prior to patient discharge: patient characteristics, coronary anatomy and lesion characterization, laboratory data, past medical history, anti-coagulation, stent type, and closure method categories. The primary outcome was any in-hospital bleeding event within 72 hours after the start of the PCI procedure. Discrimination improved from an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.812 using only presentation variables to 0.845 using all variables. Among 123,712 patients classified as low risk by the initial model, 14,441 were reclassified as moderate risk (1.4% experienced bleeds), while 723 were reclassified as high risk (12.5% experienced bleeds). Static risk prediction models have more predictive error than those that update risk prediction with newly available data, which provides up-to-date risk prediction for individualized care throughout a hospitalization.

Identifiers

PMID40560847
PMCPMC12193038

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.