Comparison and Validation of Long-Term Bleeding Events for Academic Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) Criteria and Contemporary Risk Scores for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With a Second-Generation Drug Eluting Stent

Abstract

Background: The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) defined a consensus clinical criterion for patients at HBR undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study aimed to validate and compare the ARC-HBR criteria and the contemporary risk score for long-term bleeding outcomes using a cohort of patients undergoing PCI. Methods and Results: This study analyzed 3,410 patients who underwent PCI between 2010 and 2013. The endpoint was defined as incidence of The Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding events. In addition to ARC-HBR, this study validated the predictability of the Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score, Patterns of non-adherence to Anti-platelet Regimens In Stented patients (PARIS) bleeding score, and Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto (CREDO-Kyoto) bleeding scores for bleeding events. There was a trend toward an increase in bleeding events, as the risk score increased for all bleeding risk scores used in this study. The ARC-HBR criteria had higher diagnostic sensitivity for bleeding events than other bleeding risk scores. Conclusions: Patients with a higher number of risk factors in each of the four bleeding risk scores had a higher risk of long-term bleeding events. In comparison to other contemporary risk scores, the ARC-HBR criteria were more sensitive in the identification of patients with bleeding events in the long-term.