ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025
External Validation of the PRECISE-DAPT Cancer Score in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In Hospital Assessment and Management of High Bleeding Risk in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI).Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsWe aimed to externally validate the PRECISE-DAPT cancer score which showed better accuracy in predicting bleeding events in patients with cancer than the original PRECISE-DAPT score.
methodsWe used data from the BleeMACS (Bleeding complications in a Multicenter registry of patients discharged after an Acute Coronary Syndrome) project. We compared the performance and clinical usefulness of the original score and the cancer score by calculating the C-statistic, the net reclassification index (NRI), and decision curve analysis.
resultsA total of 13,932 patients were included, of which 864 patients had a diagnosis of cancer at the time of presentation with an AMI. According to the original PRECISE DAPT score, 63.3% of patients with cancer were classified as HBR, whereas 94.9% of patients with cancer were classified as HBR according to the cancer score. Cox-regression models showed that patients classified as HBR by the updated cancer score have higher odds of bleeding (HR 2.6, 95% CI 2.1-3.1) events than patients classified as HBR by the original score (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.8-2.7). The cancer score showed higher discrimination ability (C-statistic 0.66) than the original score (C-statistic 0.64). The overall NRI of the cancer score was 2.7%. The decision curves analysis showed that the cancer score use is roughly identical to the original score in patients without cancer but superior to the original score in patients with cancer.
conclusionThe PRECISE-DAPT cancer score is a valid and useful tool for the prediction of bleeding risk in patients with cancer and presenting with AMI.
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.