Practical Assessment of the Tradeoff between Fatal Bleeding and Coronary Thrombotic Risks using the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk Criteria.

Abstract

Aims: We aimed to establish a practical method for the assessment of tradeoff between thrombotic and bleeding risks. Methods: We aimed to investigate the balance between bleeding risk and coronary thrombotic risk according to the number of the Academic Research Consortium for high bleeding risk (ARC-HBR) criteria in the multicenter prospective ST/non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI/NSTEMI) registry (N=12,093). Patients were divided as follows by the number of ARC-HBR criteria fulfilled: group 0, 0 major with ≤ 1 minor (N=6,792); group 1, 1 major with 0 minor (N=1,705); group 2, 0 major with ≥ 2 minors (N=790); group 3, 1 major with ≥ 1 minor (N=1,709); group 4, 2 majors with ≥ 0 minors (N=861); and group 5, ≥ 3 majors with ≥ 0 minor (N=236). We assessed the acute-phase absolute risk differences between bleeding and coronary thrombotic events in each group. Results: At 7-day follow-up, all patients (groups 0–5) had a higher risk of major bleeding than that of any myocardial infarction (MI). Patients at ARC-HBR (groups 1–5) had a balanced risk between fatal MI and fatal bleeding, whereas patients at non-ARC-HBR (group 0) had a higher risk of fatal MI than that of fatal bleeding. Conclusions: All STEMI/NSTEMI patients have a relatively high risk of major bleeding as compared with the risk of any MI in the acute phase. The ARC-HBR criteria would be a practical tool for assessing the tradeoff between fatal bleeding and fatal MI risks. This practical assessment would be helpful for the optimal decision-making of appropriate treatment strategy considering the balance between bleeding and coronary thrombotic risks.