Dataset Information

Prediction of gastrointestinal bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An observational cohort study (STROBE compliant).

ABSTRACT: Bleeding complications of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are strongly associated with adverse patient outcomes, and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common major bleeding event, especially in the early post-PCI period. Current guidelines recommend routinely conducting bleeding risk assessments. The existing tools are mainly used to evaluate the overall bleeding risk and guide the adjustment of antithrombotic strategies after 1 year. However, there are no specific tools for GIB risk assessment.Between January 2015 and June 2015, 4943 ACS patients underwent PCI were consecutively enrolled in the derivation cohort. GIB, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular events were recorded within 1 year of follow-up. A validation cohort including 1000 patients who met the same inclusion and exclusion criteria was also established by propensity-score matching baseline characteristics. Multivariable cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to derive a risk-scoring system, and predictive variables were selected. A risk score nomogram based on the risk prediction model was created to estimate the 1-year risk of GIB.In this study, we found that the usage of clopidogrel (hazard ratio, HR: 2.52, 95% confidence intervals, CI: 1.573-4.021) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors (HR: 1.863, 95% CI: 1.226-2.829), history of peptic ulcers (HR: 3.601, 95% CI: 1.226-2.829) or tumor (HR: 4.884, 95% CI: 1.226-2.829), and cardiac insufficiency (HR: 11.513, 95% CI: 7.282-18.202), renal insufficiency (HR: 2.010, 95% CI: 1.350-2.993), and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (HR: 4.639, 95% CI: 2.146-10.032) were independent risk factors for GIB 1 year after PCI. Based on these 7 factors, a nomogram and scoring system was established. The area under curve of risk score was 0.824 in the deviation cohort and 0.810 in the verification cohort. In both cohorts, the GIB score was significantly better than that of 3 classical bleeding scores (all P?

SUBMITTER: Zheng W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7386955 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prediction of gastrointestinal bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An observational cohort study (STROBE compliant).

Zheng Wen W Zhang Yu-Jiao YJ Liu Ran R Zhao Xue-Dong XD Ai Hui H

Medicine 20200701 30

Bleeding complications of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are strongly associated with adverse patient outcomes, and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is the most common major bleeding event, especially in the early post-PCI period. Current guidelines recommend routinely conducting bleeding risk assessments. The existing tools are mainly used to evaluate the overall bleeding risk and guide the adjustment of antithrombotic strategies after 1 year. Howev ...[more]

PMID: 32791719

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:BackgroundPrediction of thrombotic and bleeding risk is important to optimize antithrombotic therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods and resultsWe developed the prediction rules for thrombotic and bleeding events separately in Japanese patients. Derivation and validation cohorts consisted of 4778 patients from CREDO-Kyoto (Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto) registry cohort 2 and 4669 patients from RESET (Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial) and NEXT (Nobori Biolimus-Eluting Versus Xience/Promus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial). Primary thrombotic and bleeding events were a composite of myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis or ischemic stroke, and GUSTO (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries) moderate or severe bleeding. The prediction rule for thrombosis assigned 2 points for severe chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, peripheral vascular disease, and anemia and 1 point for age ?75 years, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and chronic total occlusion. The prediction rule for bleeding assigned 2 points for thrombocytopenia, severe chronic kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease, and heart failure and 1 point for prior myocardial infarction, malignancy, and atrial fibrillation. In derivation and validation cohorts, area under the curve was 0.68 and 0.64, respectively, for thrombosis and 0.66 and 0.66, respectively, for bleeding. In the validation cohort, a high thrombosis risk score (?4, n=682) was associated with higher 3-year incidence of thrombotic events than a score that was intermediate (2-3, n=1178) or low (0-1, n=2809) (7.6%, 3.7%, versus 2.4%, respectively; P<0.0001). A high bleeding risk score (?3, n=666) was associated with higher incidence of bleeding than scores that were intermediate (1-2, n=1802) or low (0, n=2201) (8.8%, 4.1%, versus 2.3%, respectively; P<0.0001). Among 682 patients at high thrombotic risk, only 39 (5.7%) had low bleeding risk, whereas 401 (58.8%) had high bleeding risk with very high incidence of bleeding (11.6%).ConclusionsCREDO-Kyoto thrombotic and bleeding risk scores demonstrated modest accuracy in stratifying thrombotic and bleeding risks; however, a large proportion of patients at high thrombotic risk also had high bleeding risk.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines currently recommend ticagrelor over clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) based on randomized clinical trial data in which ticagrelor reduced major adverse coronary events (MACE) vs clopidogrel but increased bleeding and dyspnea.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of MACE with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in patients with ACS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), to compare major bleeding and dyspnea, and to evaluate the association between P2Y12 inhibitor adherence and MACE.Design, setting, and participantsPopulation-based cohort study using data of patients discharged alive after PCI for ACS from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease registry from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up to 1 year. Analysis began April 2018.ExposuresOutpatient prescription for ticagrelor or clopidogrel within 31 days after PCI. Adherence was defined as a medication refill adherence value of 80% or higher.Main outcomes and measuresMajor adverse coronary events, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for ACS, unplanned coronary revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 365 days after index PCI. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization for major bleeding and emergency department visit for dyspnea.ResultsOf 11 185 individuals who underwent PCI, the median (interquartile range) age was 61 (54-71) years, and 2760 (24.7%) were women. Ticagrelor users (4076 [36.4%]) were generally younger and had fewer cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities than clopidogrel users. Ticagrelor was not associated with lower risk of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85-1.10); however, it was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (aHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29-1.78) and dyspnea (aHR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.47-2.65). A total of 3328 ticagrelor users (81.6%) were adherent during the study vs 5256 of clopidogrel users (73.9%) (P < .001; χ2 = 86.4). In the full cohort, adherence was associated with a lower MACE risk (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90 for adherence of ≥80% vs <80%). Differences in other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were consistent with primary analyses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this population-based cohort study of patients with ACS who underwent PCI, outpatient use of ticagrelor was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in MACE vs clopidogrel; however, it was associated with more major bleeding and dyspnea.

Project description:ImportanceCurrent guidelines recommend ticagrelor as the preferred P2Y12 platelet inhibitor for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), primarily based on a single large randomized clinical trial. The benefits and risks associated with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in routine practice merits attention.ObjectiveTo determine the association of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel with ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ACS in clinical practice.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study of patients with ACS who underwent PCI and received ticagrelor or clopidogrel was conducted using 2 United States electronic health record-based databases and 1 nationwide South Korean database from November 2011 to March 2019. Patients were matched using a large-scale propensity score algorithm, and the date of final follow-up was March 2019.ExposuresTicagrelor vs clopidogrel.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was net adverse clinical events (NACE) at 12 months, composed of ischemic events (recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, or ischemic stroke) and hemorrhagic events (hemorrhagic stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding). Secondary outcomes included NACE or mortality, all-cause mortality, ischemic events, hemorrhagic events, individual components of the primary outcome, and dyspnea at 12 months. The database-level hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled to calculate summary HRs by random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsAfter propensity score matching among 31 290 propensity-matched pairs (median age group, 60-64 years; 29.3% women), 95.5% of patients took aspirin together with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The 1-year risk of NACE was not significantly different between ticagrelor and clopidogrel (15.1% [3484/23 116 person-years] vs 14.6% [3290/22 587 person-years]; summary HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00-1.10]; P = .06). There was also no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality (2.0% for ticagrelor vs 2.1% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.81-1.16]; P = .74) or ischemic events (13.5% for ticagrelor vs 13.4% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98-1.08]; P = .32). The risks of hemorrhagic events (2.1% for ticagrelor vs 1.6% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.13-1.61]; P = .001) and dyspnea (27.3% for ticagrelor vs 22.6% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.17-1.26]; P < .001) were significantly higher in the ticagrelor group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with ACS who underwent PCI in routine clinical practice, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, was not associated with significant difference in the risk of NACE at 12 months. Because the possibility of unmeasured confounders cannot be excluded, further research is needed to determine whether ticagrelor is more effective than clopidogrel in this setting.

Dataset Information

Prediction of gastrointestinal bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An observational cohort study (STROBE compliant).

Publications

Prediction of gastrointestinal bleeding events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: An observational cohort study (STROBE compliant).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets