LAUSR

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The recent Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) proposal did not consider acute coronary syndrome (ACS), by consensus, a bleeding criterion per se despite being a high bleeding risk (HBR) scenario. We investigated the applicability of the ARC-HBR classification and criteria in ACS patients. METHODS Patients with ACS undergoing coronary stenting between 2012 and 2018 at a tertiary hospital were retrospectively classified as being at HBR if they met ≥ 1 major or ≥ 2 minor ARC-HBR criteria. The primary endpoint was the 1-year cumulative incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding. RESULTS Among 4412 patients, 29.5% were at HBR. The incidence of bleeding was higher in the HBR group than in the non-HBR group (9.4% vs 1.3%; P < .01). The rates of in-hospital periprocedural and postdischarge bleeding were also higher in the HBR group (4.3% vs 0.5% and 5.3% vs 0.9%, respectively; P < .01). Bleeding risk gradually increased with increasing ARC-HBR criteria: 1.8%, 5.0%, 9.4%, 16.8%, 25.2%, and 25.9% for 1 isolated minor criterion, ≥ 2 isolated minor criteria, 1 major criterion (isolated or plus 1 minor criterion), 1 major plus ≥ 2 minor criteria, ≥ 2 major criteria (isolated or plus 1 minor criterion), and ≥ 2 major plus ≥ 2 minor criteria, respectively. Sixteen (80%) out of 20 ARC-HBR criteria satisfied the ARC-HBR predefined cutoffs for BARC 3 or 5 bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS This study supports the use of the ARC-HBR classification and criteria in the ACS setting. The ARC-HBR classification provides an accurate major bleeding risk estimate and it seems suitable for the identification and management of patients at HBR.