Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
The impact of heart failure and bleeding risk on clinical outcomes in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Observational study 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, revascularization for ischaemic heart failure (HF) has received increasing attention, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been positioned as a high-risk procedure. However, the risk of major bleeding and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after PCI for patients with ischaemic HF has not been adequately evaluated.
methodsHF patients were selected from the PENDULUM (Platelet rEactivity in patieNts with DrUg eLUting stent and balancing risk of bleeding and ischaemic event) registry to compare the efficacy and safety of PCI in HF and non-HF patients. In addition, the impact of high bleeding risk (HBR) defined as BARC 3 and 5 was evaluated in these patients.
resultsA total of 6266 patients were included; 16% (n = 1006) had a history of HF at enrolment. Patients with HF showed a higher MACCE rate than those without HF (18.4% versus 7.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.59, 95%CI, 1.30–1.93; p < 0.001) and a significant difference in major bleeding (9.3% versus 3.3%; adjusted HR = 1.74, 95%CI, 1.30–2.33; p < 0.001). HBR was significantly more associated with the MACCE and major bleeding rates than non-HBR, regardless of HF status (adjusted HR = 2.93, 95% CI: 2.33–3.69, p < 0.001, p for interaction = 0.913, adjusted HR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.89–3.76, p < 0.001, p for interaction = 0.465, respectively).
conclusionsAfter contemporary PCI, HF and HBR were independently associated with a higher risk of MACCE and bleeding. HF patients after PCI require more careful management to improve prognosis, particularly with HBR factors.
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.