Applicability of the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk in acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

Introduction and objectivesThe recent Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) proposal did not consider acute coronary syndrome (ACS), by consensus, a bleeding criterion per se despite being a high bleeding risk (HBR) scenario. We investigated the applicability of the ARC-HBR classification and criteria in ACS patients. MethodsPatients with ACS undergoing coronary stenting between 2012 and 2018 at a tertiary hospital were retrospectively classified as being at HBR if they met ≥ 1 major or ≥ 2 minor ARC-HBR criteria. The primary endpoint was the 1-year cumulative incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding. ResultsAmong 4412 patients, 29.5% were at HBR. The incidence of bleeding was higher in the HBR group than in the non-HBR group (9.4% vs 1.3%; P < .01). The rates of in-hospital periprocedural and postdischarge bleeding were also higher in the HBR group (4.3% vs 0.5% and 5.3% vs 0.9%, respectively; P < .01). Bleeding risk gradually increased with increasing ARC-HBR criteria: 1.8%, 5.0%, 9.4%, 16.8%, 25.2%, and 25.9% for 1 isolated minor criterion, ≥ 2 isolated minor criteria, 1 major criterion (isolated or plus 1 minor criterion), 1 major plus ≥ 2 minor criteria, ≥ 2 major criteria (isolated or plus 1 minor criterion), and ≥ 2 major plus ≥ 2 minor criteria, respectively. Sixteen (80%) out of 20 ARC-HBR criteria satisfied the ARC-HBR predefined cutoffs for BARC 3 or 5 bleeding risk. ConclusionsThis study supports the use of the ARC-HBR classification and criteria in the ACS setting. The ARC-HBR classification provides an accurate major bleeding risk estimate and it seems suitable for the identification and management of patients at HBR.