RESUMO
ABSTRACT Introduction: A clear assessment of the bleeding risk score in patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) is crucial because of its impact on prognosis. The Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA score is a validated risk score to predict bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its predictive value in predicting bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients receiving antithrombotic therapy is unknown. Our aim was to investigate the predictive performance of the ATRIA bleeding score in STEMI and NSTEMI patients in comparison to the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines) and ACUITY-HORIZONS (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY-Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) bleeding scores. Methods: A total of 830 consecutive STEMI and NSTEMI patients who underwent PCI were evaluated retrospectively. The ATRIA, CRUSADE, and ACUITY-HORIZONS risk scores of the patients were calculated. Discrimination of the three risk models was evaluated using C-statistics. Results: Major bleeding occurred in 52 (6.3%) of 830 patients during hospitalization. Bleeding scores were significantly higher in the bleeding patients than in non-bleeding patients (all P<0.001). The discriminatory ability of the ATRIA, CRUSADE, and ACUITY-HORIZONS bleeding scores for bleeding events was similar (C-statistics 0.810, 0.832, and 0.909, respectively). The good predictive value of all three scores for predicting the risk of bleeding was observed in NSTEMI and STEMI patients as well (C-statistics: 0.820, 0.793, and 0.921 and 0.809, 0.854, and 0.905, respectively). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the ATRIA bleeding score is a useful risk score for predicting major in-hospital bleeding in MI patients. This good predictive value was also present in STEMI and NSTEMI patient subgroups.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: A clear assessment of the bleeding risk score in patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) is crucial because of its impact on prognosis. The Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA score is a validated risk score to predict bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its predictive value in predicting bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients receiving antithrombotic therapy is unknown. Our aim was to investigate the predictive performance of the ATRIA bleeding score in STEMI and NSTEMI patients in comparison to the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines) and ACUITY-HORIZONS (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY-Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) bleeding scores. METHODS: A total of 830 consecutive STEMI and NSTEMI patients who underwent PCI were evaluated retrospectively. The ATRIA, CRUSADE, and ACUITY-HORIZONS risk scores of the patients were calculated. Discrimination of the three risk models was evaluated using C-statistics. RESULTS: Major bleeding occurred in 52 (6.3%) of 830 patients during hospitalization. Bleeding scores were significantly higher in the bleeding patients than in non-bleeding patients (all P<0.001). The discriminatory ability of the ATRIA, CRUSADE, and ACUITY-HORIZONS bleeding scores for bleeding events was similar (C-statistics 0.810, 0.832, and 0.909, respectively). The good predictive value of all three scores for predicting the risk of bleeding was observed in NSTEMI and STEMI patients as well (C-statistics: 0.820, 0.793, and 0.921 and 0.809, 0.854, and 0.905, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the ATRIA bleeding score is a useful risk score for predicting major in-hospital bleeding in MI patients. This good predictive value was also present in STEMI and NSTEMI patient subgroups.
Assuntos
Hemorragia , Infarto do Miocárdio com Supradesnível do Segmento ST , Humanos , Fibrilação Atrial/complicações , Hemorragia/epidemiologia , Hemorragia/etiologia , Hospitais , Infarto do Miocárdio/complicações , Infarto do Miocárdio sem Supradesnível do Segmento ST/complicações , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Infarto do Miocárdio com Supradesnível do Segmento ST/complicações , Infarto do Miocárdio com Supradesnível do Segmento ST/cirurgia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Epicardial fat thickness (EFT) is associated with aortic stiffness in diabetic patients. In this study, we aimed to determine if there is an association among the parameters of EFT, aortic velocity propagation (AVP), and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. This study included 55 non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus patients and 40 non-diabetic control patients. For all participants, EFT and AVP were determined by echocardiographic method and CIMT was calculated using an ultrasonographic exam. The EFT and CIMT values were found to be significantly increased in the non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus group. On the other hand, aortic velocity propagation was decreased in the non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus group compared to non-diabetic patients (EFT; 8.43 ± 1.68 versus 6.36 ± 2.21 mm, p < 0.001; CIMT; 0.92 ± 0.24 versus 0.58 ± 0.18 mm, p < 0.001; and AVP; 28.20 ± 16.02 versus 58.10 ± 17.50, p < 0.01, respectively). Significantly higher EFT and CIMT values were found in addition to lower AVP values in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus patients. Moreover, we demonstrated that there was a strong correlation between EFT, CIMT, and AVP.