HAS-BLED score predicts risk of in-hospital major bleeding in patients with acute non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction

Abstract

BackgroundThe role of the Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, Elderly, Drugs or alcohol use (HAS-BLED) score in the prediction of in-hospital bleeding in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients receiving dual anti-platelet therapy plus heparin was unknown. In this study, we compared the HAS-BLED score with the Can Rapid Risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) and Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY and the Harmonizing Outcomes with RevascularIZatiON and Stents in acute myocardial infarction (ACUITY-HORIZONS) bleeding risk scores for in-hospital major bleeding risk stratification in NSTEMI patients. MethodsA real world population of 617 NSTEMI patients receiving dual anti-platelet plus heparin as initial therapy were enrolled. CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS and HAS-BLED risk scores were calculated for each patient. ResultsThis cohort had a 6.5% incidence of in-hospital major bleeding. For the prediction of in-hospital major bleeding, the discriminations between CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS and HAS-BLED were good (C-statistic 0.81, 0.82 and 0.80, respectively). There was no significant difference between these three risk scores (HAS-BLED vs. CRUSADE: z=−0.08, p=0.27; HAS-BLED vs. ACUITY-HORIZONS: z=−0.06, p=0.26; CRUSADE vs. ACUITY-HORIZONS: z=−0.15, p=0.28). ConclusionThe CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS and HAS-BLED scores were useful tools for risk stratification of in-hospital major bleeding in NSTEMI patients. The HAS-BLED score had a simpler calculation and a similar accuracy for risk assessment as the other two scores evaluated.