| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 2009;119:1873-1882.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.
Coronary Heart Disease |
From the Washington University School of Medicine (S.S., R.G.B., B.F.G.), St Louis, Mo; Duke Clinical Research Institute (A.Y.C., S.V.R., L.K.N., T.Y.W., E.M.O., M.T.R., E.D.P., K.P.A.), Durham, NC; University of Cincinnati (W.B.G.), Cincinnati, Ohio; and Pennsylvania Hospital (C.V.P.), Philadelphia, Pa.
Correspondence to Richard G. Bach, MD, Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8086, 660 S Euclid Ave, St Louis, MO 63110. E-mail rbach{at}im.wustl.edu
Received October 13, 2008; accepted January 28, 2009.
Background— Treatments for non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) reduce ischemic events but increase bleeding. Baseline prediction of bleeding risk can complement ischemic risk prediction for optimization of NSTEMI care; however, existing models are not well suited for this purpose.
Methods and Results— We developed (n=71 277) and validated (n=17 857) a model that identifies 8 independent baseline predictors of in-hospital major bleeding among community-treated NSTEMI patients enrolled in the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Model performance was tested by c statistics in the derivation and validation cohorts and according to postadmission treatment (ie, invasive and antithrombotic therapy). The CRUSADE bleeding score (range 1 to 100 points) was created by assignment of weighted integers that corresponded to the coefficient of each variable. The rate of major bleeding increased by bleeding risk score quintiles: 3.1% for those at very low risk (score
20); 5.5% for those at low risk (score 21–30); 8.6% for those at moderate risk (score 31–40); 11.9% for those at high risk (score 41–50); and 19.5% for those at very high risk (score >50; Ptrend <0.001). The c statistics for the major bleeding model (derivation=0.72 and validation=0.71) and risk score (derivation=0.71 and validation=0.70) were similar. The c statistics for the model among treatment subgroups were as follows:
2 antithrombotics=0.72; <2 antithrombotics=0.73; invasive approach=0.73; conservative approach=0.68.
Conclusions— The CRUSADE bleeding score quantifies risk for in-hospital major bleeding across all postadmission treatments, which enhances baseline risk assessment for NSTEMI care.
Related Article:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. P. Giugliano and E. Braunwald The Year in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 13, 2009; 54(16): 1544 - 1555. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Estimating Bleeding Risk in Patients with Non-ST-Segment-Elevation MI Journal Watch Cardiology, May 6, 2009; 2009(506): 2 - 2. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Anderson Stopping the Hemorrhage: A New Baseline Bleeding Score Brings Us a Step Closer for Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Circulation, April 14, 2009; 119(14): 1846 - 1849. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2009 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |