External Validation of the ACUITY/HORIZON Bleeding Risk Score among Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients in Thai PCI Registry

Abstract

Background External validation is essential before implementing a predictive model in clinical practice. This analysis validated the performance of the ACUITY/HORIZON risk score in the most contemporary Thai PCI registry.

Methods The ACUITY/HORIZON model was applied and validated externally in 12,268 ACS (acute coronary syndrome) patients. For revision and updating models, the regression coefficientd of all predictors were re-estimated and then additional predictors were stepwise selected from multivariate analysis.

Results In-hospital bleeding defined by the BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) criteria was 1.3% (161 patients) and 2.3% (285 patients) by the ACUITY criteria. The calibration of both scales demonstrated overestimation of the original model with C-statistic values of 0.704 for ACUITY major bleeding and 0.793 for BARC 3 or 5 bleeding. For ACUITY major bleeding, the discriminatory power of the update model improved substantially when congestive heart failure (CHF), prior vascular disease as well as body mass index were considered. The update model demonstrated good calibration and C-statistic of 0.747 and 0.745 with no white blood cell (WBC) count. For BARC 3 or 5 bleeding, good calibration and discriminatory capacity could be observed when CHF and prior vascular disease were added in the update models, with an excellent C-statistic of 0.838, and a lower C-statistic value of 0.835 was obtained in the absence of WBC count.

Conclusion The ACUITY/HORIZON score was successfully validated in contemporary predictive and risk-adjustment models for PCI-related bleeding. The update models had good operating characteristics in patients from a real-world ACS population irrespective of bleeding definitions.

Keywords

ACUITY/HORIZON risk score - acute coronary syndrome - percutaneous coronary intervention - in-hospital major bleeding

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 28. März 2022

Angenommen: 18. Oktober 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
20. Oktober 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. Dezember 2022

• References

• 1 Mehran R, Pocock SJ, Nikolsky E. et al. A risk score to predict bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55 (23) 2556-2566
• 2 Subherwal S, Bach RG, Chen AY. et al. Baseline risk of major bleeding in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines) Bleeding Score. Circulation 2009; 119 (14) 1873-1882
• 3 Abu-Assi E, Raposeiras-Roubin S, Lear P. et al. Comparing the predictive validity of three contemporary bleeding risk scores in acute coronary syndrome. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2012; 1 (03) 222-231
• 4 Flores-Ríos X, Couto-Mallón D, Rodríguez-Garrido J. et al. Comparison of the performance of the CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION bleeding risk scores in STEMI undergoing primary PCI: insights from a cohort of 1391 patients. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2013; 2 (01) 19-26
• 5 Ariza-Solé A, Sánchez-Elvira G, Sánchez-Salado JC. et al. CRUSADE bleeding risk score validation for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Thromb Res 2013; 132 (06) 652-658
• 6 Ariza-Solé A, Salazar-Mendiguchía J, Lorente V. et al. Predictive ability of bleeding risk scores in the routine clinical practice. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2015; 4 (03) 205-210
• 7 Correia LCL, Ferreira F, Kalil F. et al. Comparison of ACUITY and CRUSADE scores in predicting major bleeding during acute coronary syndrome. Arq Bras Cardiol 2015; 105 (01) 20-27
• 8 Kawashima H, Gao C, Takahashi K. et al. Comparative assessment of predictive performance of PRECISE-DAPT, CRUSADE, and ACUITY scores in risk stratifying 30-day bleeding events. Thromb Haemost 2020; 120 (07) 1087-1095
• 9 Liu R, Lyu SZ, Zhao GQ. et al. Comparison of the performance of the CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION bleeding scores in ACS patients undergoing PCI: insights from a cohort of 4939 patients in China. J Geriatr Cardiol 2017; 14 (02) 93-99
• 10 Sansanayudh N, Srimahachota S, Chandavimol M. et al. Multi-center, prospective, nation-wide coronary angioplasty registry in Thailand (Thai PCI Registry): registry design and rationale. J Med Assoc Thai 2021; 104 (10) 1678-1685
• 11 Sansanayudh N, Chandavimol M, Srimahachota S. et al. Patient characteristics, procedural details, and outcomes of contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention in real-world practice: insights from nationwide Thai PCI registry. J Interv Cardiol 2022; 2022: 5839834
• 12 Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL. et al. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation 2011; 123 (23) 2736-2747
• 13 Stone GW, Bertrand M, Colombo A. et al. Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY (ACUITY) trial: study design and rationale. Am Heart J 2004; 148 (05) 764-775
• 14 Harrell Jr FE, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Lee KL, Rosati RA. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA 1982; 247 (18) 2543-2546
• 15 Lemeshow S, Hosmer Jr DW. A review of goodness of fit statistics for use in the development of logistic regression models. Am J Epidemiol 1982; 115 (01) 92-106
• 16 Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, Wynants L, Steyerberg EW. Topic Group ‘Evaluating diagnostic tests and prediction models’ of the STRATOS initiative. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics. BMC Med 2019; 17 (01) 230
• 17 Moons KGM, Altman DG, Reitsma JB. et al. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162 (01) W1-73
• 18 Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2021; 42 (14) 1289-1367
• 19 Simonsson M, Winell H, Olsson H. et al. Development and validation of a novel risk score for in-hospital major bleeding in acute myocardial infarction:-the SWEDEHEART score. J Am Heart Assoc 2019; 8 (05) e012157
• 20 Rocca B, Fox KAA, Ajjan RA. et al. Antithrombotic therapy and body mass: an expert position paper of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis. Eur Heart J 2018; 39 (19) 1672-1686f
• 21 Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G. et al; HORIZONS-AMI Trial Investigators. Bivalirudin during primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (21) 2218-2230
• 22 Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Leonardi S. et al; MATRIX Investigators. Bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2015; 373 (11) 997-1009
• 23 Cavender MA, Sabatine MS. Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients planned for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014; 384 (9943): 599-606
• 24 Erlinge D, Omerovic E, Fröbert O. et al. Bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (12) 1132-1142