Dataset Information

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk.

ABSTRACT: Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

SUBMITTER: Urban P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6736433 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk.

Urban Philip P Mehran Roxana R Colleran Roisin R Angiolillo Dominick J DJ Byrne Robert A RA Capodanno Davide D Cuisset Thomas T Cutlip Donald D Eerdmans Pedro P Eikelboom John J Farb Andrew A Gibson C Michael CM Gregson John J Haude Michael M James Stefan K SK Kim Hyo-Soo HS Kimura Takeshi T Konishi Akihide A Laschinger John J Leon Martin B MB Magee P F Adrian PFA Mitsutake Yoshiaki Y Mylotte Darren D Pocock Stuart S Price Matthew J MJ Rao Sunil V SV Spitzer Ernest E Stockbridge Norman N Valgimigli Marco M Varenne Olivier O Windhoevel Ute U Yeh Robert W RW Krucoff Mitchell W MW Morice Marie-Claude MC

European heart journal 20190801 31

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneo ...[more]

PMID: 31116395

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate ischemic and bleeding outcomes of unselected cancer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundThe number of cancer patients undergoing PCI is increasing despite concerns regarding ischemic and bleeding risks.MethodsBetween 2009 and 2017, consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively included in the Bern PCI Registry. Cancer-specific data including type, date of initial diagnosis, and health status at index PCI were collected. We performed propensity score matching to adjust for baseline differences between patients with and without cancer. The primary ischemic endpoint was the device-oriented composite endpoint (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) at 1 year, and the primary bleeding endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2 to 5 at 1 year.ResultsAmong 13,647 patients, 1,368 (10.0%) had an established diagnosis of cancer. The 3 leading cancer types were prostate (n = 294), gastrointestinal tract (n = 188), and hematopoietic (n = 177). At index PCI, 179 (13.1%) patients were receiving active cancer treatment. In matched analysis, there was no significant difference in device-oriented composite endpoint (11.5% vs. 10.2%; p = 0.251), whereas cardiac death and BARC 2 to 5 bleeding occurred more frequently among patients with cancer compared with those without cancer (6.8% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.010 and 8.0% vs. 6.0%; p = 0.026, respectively). Cancer diagnosis within 1 year before PCI emerged as an independent predictor for cardiac death and BARC 2 to 5 bleeding at 1 year.ConclusionsCancer patients carry an increased risk of cardiac mortality that was not associated with stent-related ischemic events among patients undergoing PCI in routine clinical practice. Higher risk of bleeding in cancer patients undergoing PCI deserves particular attention. (CARDIOBASE Bern PCI Registry; NCT02241291).

Project description:We aimed to characterize the performance and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex, high-risk indicated procedure (CHIP) and high-bleeding-risk (HBR) patients at a 4-year follow up. We included all consecutive patients who underwent PCI with the sirolimus-eluting coronary stent Alex Plus (Balton, Poland) between July 2015 and March 2016. We analyzed various baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory data, and clinical outcomes. We enrolled 232 patients in whom 282 stents were implanted, including 81 patients meeting the CHIP criteria and 76 patients meeting the HBR criteria. In the whole population, the mean age was 68 ± 11 years, and 23.7% were females. Most procedures were performed from radial access (83.2%) using a 6F guiding catheter (95.7%). The lesions were mostly predilated (61.6%), and postdilatation was performed in 37.9%. The device success was 99.6% (in one case, a second stent was required due to heavy calcifications). Additional stents were deployed in 39% of cases due to edge dissection (6.9%), side branch stenting (5.2%), or diffuse disease (26.9%). Myocardial infarction (MI) type 4a was revealed in 2.2% of cases. At 4 years, the MACE rates for the whole population and for CHIP and HBR patients were 23.3%, 29.6%, and 27.6%, respectively. CHIP patients had a higher risk of MACEs (29.6% vs. 19.9%, HR 1.69, p = 0.032) and cardiac death (11.1% vs. 4.6%, HR 2.50, p = 0.048). There were no differences for MI (7.4% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.826) and TLR (18.5% vs. 12.6%, p = 0.150). HBR patients were also characterized by a higher risk of MACEs (27.6% vs. 21.2%, HR 1.84, p = 0.049) and cardiac death (17.1% vs. 1.9%, HR 9.61, p < 0.001). There were no differences for MI (7.9% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.669) and TLR (11.8% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.991). PCI in CHIP and HBR patients is feasible with a low rate of periprocedural complications. Nevertheless, CHIP and HBR patients are at a high risk of future adverse events and require strict surveillance to improve outcomes.

Dataset Information

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk.

Publications

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets