| 1. |
- Raposeiras-Roubin, Sergio, et al.
(författare)
-
Development and external validation of a post-discharge bleeding risk score in patients with acute coronary syndrome : The BleeMACS score
- 2018
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cardiology. - : ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD. - 0167-5273 .- 1874-1754. ; 254, s. 10-15
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Accurate 1-year bleeding risk estimation after hospital discharge for acute coronary syndrome(ACS) may help clinicians guide the type and duration of antithrombotic therapy. Currently there are no predictive models for this purpose. The aim of this study was to derive and validate a simple clinical tool for bedside risk estimation of 1-year post-discharge serious bleeding in ACS patients.Methods: The risk score was derived and internally validated in the BleeMACS (Bleeding complications in a Multicenter registry of patients discharged with diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome) registry, an observational international registry involving 15,401 patients surviving admission for ACS and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 2003 to 2014, engaging 15 hospitals from 10 countries located in America, Europe and Asia. External validation was conducted in the SWEDEHEART population, with 96,239 ACS patients underwent PCI and 93,150 without PCI.Results: Seven independent predictors of bleeding were identified and included in the BleeMACS score: age, hypertension, vascular disease, history of bleeding, malignancy, creatinine and hemoglobin. The BleeMACS risk score exhibited a C-statistic value of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.74) in the derivation cohort and 0.72 (95% CI 0.67-0.76) in the internal validation sample. In the SWEDEHEART external validation cohort, the C-statistic was 0.65 (95% CI 0.64-0.66) for PCI patients and 0.63 (95% CI 0.62-0.64) for non-PCI patients. The calibration was excellent in the derivation and validation cohorts.Conclusions: The BleeMACS bleeding risk score is a simple tool useful for identifying those ACS patients at higher risk of serious 1-year post-discharge bleeding.
|
|
| 2. |
- van der Sangen, Niels M. R., et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-tailored antithrombotic therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press. - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 42:10, s. 1038-
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dual antiplatelet therapy has long been the standard of care in preventing coronary and cerebrovascular thrombotic events in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but choosing the optimal treatment duration and composition has become a major challenge. Numerous studies have shown that certain patients benefit from either shortened or extended treatment duration. Furthermore, trials evaluating novel antithrombotic strategies, such as P2Y(12) inhibitor monotherapy, low-dose factor Xa inhibitors on top of antiplatelet therapy, and platelet function- or genotype-guided (de-)escalation of treatment, have shown promising results. Current guidelines recommend risk stratification for tailoring treatment duration and composition. Although several risk stratification methods evaluating ischaemic and bleeding risk are available to clinicians, such as the use of risk scores, platelet function testing, and genotyping, risk stratification has not been broadly adopted in clinical practice. Multiple risk scores have been developed to determine the optimal treatment duration, but external validation studies have yielded conflicting results in terms of calibration and discrimination and there is limited evidence that their adoption improves clinical outcomes. Likewise, platelet function testing and genotyping can provide useful prognostic insights, but trials evaluating treatment strategies guided by these stratification methods have produced mixed results. This review critically appraises the currently available antithrombotic strategies and provides a viewpoint on the use of different risk stratification methods alongside clinical judgement in current clinical practice. [GRAPHICS]
|
|
