Differential Use and Impact of Bleeding Avoidance Strategies on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Related Bleeding Stratified by Predicted Risk

Author:

Gluckman Ty J.1ORCID,Wang Lian1,Spinelli Kateri J.1,Petersen John L.2,Huang Paul2,Amin Amit3,Messenger John C.4,Rao Sunil V.5

Affiliation:

1. Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Research and Data Science (CARDS), Providence Heart Institute, Providence St. Joseph Health, Portland, Oregon (T.J.G., L.W., K.J.S.).

2. Swedish Heart and Vascular Institute, Providence St. Joseph Health, Seattle, WA (J.L.P., P.H.).

3. Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO (A.A.).

4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (J.C.M.).

5. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (S.V.R.).

Abstract

Background: Procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin (BIV), trans-radial intervention (TRI), and use of a vascular closure device (VCD) are thought to mitigate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related bleeding. We compared the impact of these bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) for PCIs stratified by bleeding risk. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of PCIs from 18 facilities within one health care system from 2009Q3 to 2017Q4. Bleeding risk was assessed per the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model, with procedures stratified into 6 categories (first, second, third quartiles, 75th–90th, 90th–97.5th, and top 2.5th percentiles). Regression models were used to assess the impact of BAS on bleeding outcome. Results: Of 74 953 PCIs, 9.4% used no BAS, 12.0% used BIV alone, 20.8% used TRI alone, 26.8% used VCD alone, 5.4% used TRI+BIV, and 25.6% used VCD+BIV. The crude bleeding rate was 4.4% overall. Only 2 comparisons showed significant trends across all risk strata: VCD+BIV versus no BAS, odds ratio (95% CI) range: first quartile, 0.36 (0.18–0.72) to top 2.5th percentile, 0.50 (0.32–0.78); TRI versus no BAS, odds ratio (95% CI) range: first quartile, 0.15 (0.06–0.38) to top 2.5th percentile, 0.49 (0.28–0.86). TRI had lower odds of bleeding compared with BIV for all risk strata except the top 2.5th percentile. Addition of BIV to TRI did not change the odds of bleeding for any risk strata. Factors potentially limiting use of TRI (renal failure, shock, cardiac arrest, and mechanical circulatory support) were present in ≤10% of procedures below the 90th percentile. Conclusions: Among individual BAS, only TRI had consistently lower odds of bleeding across all risk strata. Factors potentially limiting TRI were found infrequently in procedures below the 90th percentile of bleeding risk. For transfemoral PCI, VCD+BIV had lower odds of bleeding compared with no BAS across all risk strata.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Reference26 articles.

1. Determining the In-Hospital Cost of Bleeding in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2. Major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention and risk of subsequent mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

3. Impact of bleeding on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention results from a patient-level pooled analysis of the REPLACE-2 (randomized evaluation of PCI linking angiomax to reduced clinical events), ACUITY (acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy), and HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trials.;Mehran R;JACC Cardiovasc Interv,2011

4. Access and Non–Access Site Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Risk of Subsequent Mortality and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events

5. Standardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3