SynthesisBMC medicine2025
Meta-analysis and external validation of a risk model for gastrointestinal bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a cornerstone in the management of coronary artery disease; however, postoperative gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) represents a significant complication that adversely impacts patient prognosis. Numerous factors influence GIB, yet no comprehensive meta-analysis has synthesized these to date. Current predictive tools, such as the CRUSADE and PRECISE-DAPT scores, exhibit limited efficacy in forecasting GIB following PCI, underscoring the urgent need for a more precise model to enhance risk management.
methodsThis study employed a meta-analysis to identify risk factors for GIB post-PCI and subsequently developed predictive models based on these findings. The meta-analysis incorporated 77 studies encompassing a total of 7,211,114 patients with PCI. Ten predictive models were constructed from the analysis and validated in an external cohort of 3425 patients with PCI from two tertiary hospitals.
resultsA total of 129 influencing factors were included, with a meta-analysis conducted on 71, identifying 60 factors significantly associated with GIB. Model I, the most clinically applicable model comprising nine risk factors (female sex, advanced age, smoking, prior gastrointestinal ulcer, renal insufficiency, non-use of proton pump inhibitors, anticoagulant use, anemia, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist administration), demonstrated superior performance in external validation with an AUC of 0.842. This outperformed the CRUSADE score (AUC = 0.770) and PRECISE-DAPT score (AUC = 0.772), with DeLong's test, significant positive Net Reclassification Improvement Index, and Integrated Discrimination Improvement further confirming its enhanced clinical utility.
conclusionsGIB following PCI is influenced by a multitude of factors. Model I excels in predicting this complication, surpassing existing scoring systems, and offers substantial clinical value by enabling personalized risk management to improve patient outcomes. All nine predictors are routinely available at the bedside or in the electronic health record, facilitating immediate clinical implementation without additional testing.
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.