ABSTRACT
Resumen Objetivo: validar y comparar las escalas de riesgo de sangrado CRUSADE y ACTION en pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación del segmento ST (SCASEST) llevados a estratificación coronaria invasiva temprana en un centro de alta complejidad. Métodos: estudio de tipo observacional, analítico y prospectivo, de validación de escalas en una cohorte de pacientes con SCASEST llevados a estratificación coronaria invasiva temprana en un centro cardiovascular. Las escalas de riesgo CRUSADE y ACTION fueron calculadas con las características basales. La ocurrencia de sangrado mayor fue definido por hemorragia intracerebral, retroperitoneal, caída del hematocrito > 12% o necesidad de transfusión cuando el hematocrito fuera > 3 g/dL o > 28% o < 28% con documentación de sangrado clínico o sangrado no relacionado con cirugía de revascularización. Resultados: en este análisis la tasa de sangrado mayor observada fue de 4.8%. La presencia de sangrado mayor se asoció con una probabilidad mayor de mortalidad durante el seguimiento a seis meses (OR 5.316; IC 95% 1.77 -15.92; p= 0.002). La calibración de las escalas de riesgo fue adecuada de acuerdo al estadístico Hosmer-Lemeshow (p>0.05). Ambas escalas demostraron buena discriminación sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el escenario intrahospitalario (AUC ROC CRUSADE ACTION 0.77 vs 0.80 p=0.19), al mes (AUC ROC CRUSADE ACTION 0.70 vs 0.75 p=0.08) y 6 meses (AUC ROC CRUSADE ACTION 0.71 vs 0.76 p=0.09), respectivamente. Conclusiones: las escalas de riesgo CRUSADE y ACTION son herramientas útiles para la predicción del riesgo de sangrado en pacientes con SCASEST llevados a estratificación coronaria invasiva temprana. Estos hallazgos sugieren el uso de la escala ACTION sobre la escala de riesgo CRUSADE.
Abstract Objective: to validate and compare the CRUSADE and ACTION bleeding risk scores in patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS) undergoing early invasive coronary stratification in a highly complex center. Methods: an observational, analytical and prospective study of scale validation in a cohort of patients with NSTEACS who underwent early invasive coronary stratification in a cardiovascular center. The CRUSADE and ACTION risk scales were calculated with the baseline characteristics. The occurrence of major bleeding was defined by intracerebral, retroperitoneal hemorrhage, he-matocrit drop > 12% or need for transfusion when the hematocrit was> 3 g/dL or > 28% or <28% with clinical bleeding documentor bleeding not related to revascularization surgery. Results: in this analysis, the highest observed bleeding rate was 4.8%. The presence of major bleeding was associated with a higher probability of mortality during six-month follow-up (OR 5.316, 95% CI 1.77 -15.92, p = 0.002). The calibration of the risk scales was adequate according to the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic (p> 0.05). Both scales showed good discrimination without statistically significant differences in the intrahospital setting (AUC ROC CRUSADE ACTION 0.77 vs 0.80 p = 0.19) one month (AUC ROC CRUSADE ACTION 0.70 vs 0.75 p = 0.08) and 6 months (AUC ROC CRUSADE ACTION 0.71 vs 0.76 p = 0.09), respectively. Conclusions: the CRUSADE and ACTION risk scales are useful tools for the prediction of bleeding risk in patients with NSTEACS who are undergoing early invasive coronary stratification. These findings suggest the use of the ACTION scale over the CRUSADE risk scale.
Subject(s)
Humans , Animals , Male , Adult , Acute Coronary Syndrome , Patients , Calibration , Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction , HemorrhageABSTRACT
Background@#There was still conflict on the antithrombotic advantage of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel among East Asian population with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We considered that the baseline bleeding risk might be an undetected key factor that significantly affected the efficacy of ticagrelor.@*Methods@#A total of 20,816 serial patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from October 2011 to August 2014 in the General Hospital of Shenyang Military Region were enrolled in the present study. Patients receiving ticagrelor or clopidogrel were further subdivided according to basic bleeding risk. The primary outcome was net adverse clinical events (NACEs) defined as major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (MACCE, including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, or stroke) and any bleeding during 1-year follow-up. Comparison between ticagrelor and clopidogrel was adjusted by propensity score matching (PSM).@*Results@#Among the 20,816 eligible PCI patients who were included in this study, there were 1578 and 779 patients in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively, after PSM, their clinical parameters were well matched. Patients receiving ticagrelor showed comparable NACE risk compared with those treated by clopidogrel (5.3% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.842). Furthermore, ticagrelor might reduce the MACCE risk in patients with low bleeding risk but increase MACCE in patients with moderate-to-high bleeding potential (ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel, low bleeding risk: 2.5% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.022; moderate-to-high bleeding risk: 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.225; interaction P = 0.021), with vast differences in all bleeding (low bleeding risk: 1.5% vs. 0.8%, P = 0.210; moderate-to-high bleeding risk: 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.002; interaction P = 0.296).@*Conclusion@#Among real-world Chinese patients with ACS treated by PCI, ticagrelor only showed superior efficacy in patients with low bleeding risk but lost its advantage in patients with moderate-to-high bleeding potential.
Subject(s)
Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Acute Coronary Syndrome , Therapeutics , Adenosine , Clopidogrel , Therapeutic Uses , Hemorrhage , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , Therapeutic Uses , Ticagrelor , Therapeutic Uses , Ticlopidine , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Objective:To guide antithrombotic medication in the patients with PCI by GRACE and CRUSADE risk score. Meth-ods:The GRACE and CRUSADE score at the admission of 147 patients with ACS undergone PCI in one 3-level hospital were analyzed, and the two risk scores of the PCI patients and the correlation between the two scores were studied. Results:The risk factors in the two scores were part of the same, and the two scores had significant positive correlation. Conclusion: The GRACE score and CRUSADE score should be assessed at the same time in clinics to weigh the risk of bleeding and ischemia fully and then develop strategies for an-tithrombotic treatment.