High bleeding risk – the clinical context matters

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. e867-e868
Author(s):  
Mamas A. Mamas ◽  
Sonya N. Burgess
Open Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e001761
Author(s):  
Mirvat Alasnag ◽  
Tara L Jones ◽  
Yasmin Hanfi ◽  
Nicola Ryan

Balancing ischaemic and bleeding risks in high-risk populations undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions has become an everyday dilemma for clinicians. It is particularly difficult to make decisions concerning combinations and duration of antiplatelet regimens in women given the poor representation of women in trials that have shaped current practice. Several contemporary landmark trials have recently been presented at the American College of Cardiology. The trials included the Harmonising Optimal Strategy for Treatment of coronary artery diseases-EXtended Antiplatelet Monotherapy, Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention and the TicAgrelor versus CLOpidogrel in Stabilised Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction. In this article, we summarise the main findings of these trials and include the The Polymer-free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk (LEADERS FREE) in search for evidence based best practices for women patients. Although some of these trials had prespecified a subanalysis of sex differences, women constituted only 17%–30% of participants making sex-specific analyses challenging. Data suggest that women benefit from de-escalation to both ticagrelor and clopidogrel monotherapy. However, given the increased bleeding risks observed in women further randomised controlled trials are necessary to determine the most appropriate combination and duration of dual antiplatelet therapy as well as maintenance single antiplatelet therapy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (18) ◽  
pp. 899
Author(s):  
Stephan Windecker ◽  
Elvin Kedhi ◽  
Azeem Latib ◽  
David Kandzari ◽  
Ajay Kirtane ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Cordero ◽  
J.M Garcia-Acuna ◽  
M Rodriguez-Manero ◽  
B Cid ◽  
B Alvarez Alvarez ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In 2019 the Academic Research Consortium of high-bleeding risk (ARC-HBR) proposed a new and binary definition of high-bleeding risk (HBR) patients based on the presence of 1 major or 2 minor criteria. Methods Prospective study of all consecutive patients admitted for ACS in two different centers. We analyzed bleeding incidence in patients with 1 major criteria (1MC) vs. 2 minor criteria (2mC) using the 2019 ARC-HBR consensus. Bleeding events were collected according those fitting definitions 3 or 5 of the BARC consortium. Results We included 8,724 patients included and 40.9% we classified as HBR; 20.9% for 1MC and 20.0% for 2mC. In-hospital mayor bleeding rate was 8.6%; no-HBR patients had 0.3%, 2mC 15.1% and 1MC 29.7% (p<0.001 for the comparison). In contrast, the statistically highest in-hospital mortality was observed in patients with 2mC (11.4%), followed by patients with 1MC (8.0%) and no-HBR patients (2.0%). During follow-up (median time 57.8 months) all-cause mortality rate was 21.0% and cardiovascular dead 14.2%. The incidence of post-discharge major bleeding was 10.5%. No-HBR patients had the lowest bleeding rate (7.4%) and no difference was observed in patients with 1MC (14.6%) or 2mC (15.8%) (figure). The multivariate analysis, adjusted by age, gender, medical treatment, atrial fibrillation and revascularization and considering all-cause mortality as competing risk, showed independent association of 1MC (sHR: 1.46, 95% 1.22–1.75) and 2mC (sHR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.05–1.63) with post-discharge major bleeding. Conclusions HBR patients according to the 2019 ARC-HBR containing 2mC or 1MC are at similar and higher risk of in-hospital or post-discharge bleeding events Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document