Article ID: CJ-17-0760
Background:The CRUSADE, ACTION and ACUITY-HORIZONS bleeding scores have been derived using Caucasian patients, and little is known about which has the better predictive ability in Chinese patients, especially for patients with STEMI.
Methods and Results:We retrospectively analyzed 2,208 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI (PPCI). Major bleeding events were defined according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria (type 3 or 5). Predictive ability of the 3 scores was assessed using logistic regression and AUC. Unadjusted HR for 1-year death were determined on Cox proportional hazard modeling. The major bleeding rate was 2.4%. The AUC of the CRUSADE, ACTION and ACUTIY-HORIZONS models was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84–0.92), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87–0.94), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.87–0.94). The calibration of the ACUTIY-HORIZONS model was not acceptable overall, or in the subgroup of access site (P<0.05). In the high-risk category, 1-year mortality was approximately 4–7-fold greater than in the low-risk category (CRUSADE: HR, 7.27; 95% CI: 3.30–16.02, P<0.001; ACTION: HR, 7.13; 95% CI: 2.19–15.41, P<0.001; ACUITY-HORIZONS: HR, 4.06; 95% CI: 1.62–10.16; P=0.003).
Conclusions:The CRUSADE and ACTION scores have greater predictive ability for in-hospital major bleeding than the ACUITY-HORIZONS risk score in Chinese STEMI patients undergoing PPCI. Mortality would increase with the transition from low- to high-risk category in 1 year.
