Ishiguchi Hironori, Yasuda Yu, Mabuchi Hiroya, Yamaguchi Madoka, Murakami Kei, Kinoshita Natsu, Kato Takayoshi, Yoshida Masaaki, Sonoyama Kazuhiko, Imoto Koji, Okamura Takayuki, Endo Akihiro, Kobayashi Shigeki, Tanabe Kazuaki, Sano Motoaki, Oda Tsuyoshi
Department of Medicine and Clinical Science, Division of Cardiology, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Minamikogushi, Ube, Yamaguchi, 755-8505, Japan.
Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science at University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025 May 15;25(1):370. doi: 10.1186/s12872-025-04834-1.
The differentiation of the Academic Research Consortium high bleeding risk (HBR) (ARC-HBR) criteria and those modified for Japanese patients (J-HBR) for predicting events following discharge in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has yet to be clarified. In this study, we compared the ARC-HBR and J-HBR criteria for predicting post-discharge bleeding and associated events in patients with ACS.
We retrospectively analyzed data from 889 patients with ACS discharged alive at two tertiary hospitals in Japan between August 2009 and July 2018. We identified patients with HBR using both sets of criteria. We compared the incidence of major bleeding/all-cause death within 2 years following discharge and performance metrics between each set of criteria, and explored the efficacy of combining both sets of criteria to stratify risk levels for the prediction of clinical events.
Eighty patients experienced major bleeding/all-cause death. In the ARC-HBR and J-HBR criteria, 51% and 65% of patients were categorized as HBR, respectively. Both sets of criteria effectively identified patients at a high risk of major bleeding/all-cause death. The ARC-HBR demonstrated a significantly higher area under the curve (AUC) for major bleeding and all-cause death combined (AUC [95% confidence interval]: 0.67 [0.64-0.69]) than that of the J-HBR (0.63 [0.60-0.66], P = 0.015). In each component, while the AUC for major bleeding was comparable between the two sets of criteria (0.61 [0.57-0.64] vs. 0.61 [0.57-0.63], P = 0.95), the ARC-HBR criteria showed a significantly higher AUC for all-cause death than the J-HBR criteria (0.67 [0.64-0.70] vs. 0.61 [0.59-0.64], P < 0.001). The combined use of both sets of criteria effectively stratified the risk for major bleeding/all-cause death (hazard ratio [95% confident interval]: 5.81 [2.79-12.07] in those positive for both sets of criteria, compared to those negative in both sets of criteria).
The ARC-HBR criteria demonstrated a greater discriminative capability for predicting major bleeding/all-cause mortality than the J-HBR criteria. For major bleeding alone, the discriminative ability of both sets of criteria was comparable.
急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者出院后事件预测的学术研究联盟高出血风险(ARC-HBR)标准与针对日本患者修改后的标准(J-HBR)之间的差异尚未明确。在本研究中,我们比较了ARC-HBR和J-HBR标准对ACS患者出院后出血及相关事件的预测能力。
我们回顾性分析了2009年8月至2018年7月期间在日本两家三级医院存活出院的889例ACS患者的数据。我们使用这两套标准识别高出血风险患者。我们比较了出院后2年内大出血/全因死亡的发生率以及每组标准之间的性能指标,并探讨了将两套标准结合起来分层风险水平以预测临床事件的有效性。
80例患者发生了大出血/全因死亡。在ARC-HBR和J-HBR标准中,分别有51%和65%的患者被归类为高出血风险。两套标准均有效地识别出大出血/全因死亡高风险患者。ARC-HBR标准在预测大出血和全因死亡合并事件方面的曲线下面积(AUC)(AUC [95%置信区间]:0.67 [0.64 - 0.69])显著高于J-HBR标准(0.63 [0.60 - 0.66],P = 0.015)。在每个组成部分中,虽然两套标准在大出血方面的AUC相当(0.61 [0.57 - 0.64] 对 0.61 [0.57 - 0.63],P = 0.95),但ARC-HBR标准在全因死亡方面的AUC显著高于J-HBR标准(0.67 [0.64 - 0.70] 对 0.61 [0.59 - 0.64],P < 0.001)。两套标准联合使用有效地对大出血/全因死亡风险进行了分层(与两套标准均为阴性的患者相比,两套标准均为阳性的患者的风险比 [95%置信区间]:5.81 [2.79 - 12.07])。
与J-HBR标准相比,ARC-HBR标准在预测大出血/全因死亡率方面具有更强的鉴别能力。仅针对大出血而言,两套标准的鉴别能力相当。