External validation of bleeding risk models for the prediction of long-term bleeding risk in patients with established cardiovascular disease
Authors' conclusion
The performance of existing bleeding risk models to predict long-term bleeding in patients with CVD varied. Discrimination and calibration were best for the models of de Vries et al, S2TOP-BLEED, DAPT and PRECISE-DAPT.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-second manifestations of arterial disease study
- Participants
- 7,249 patients
- Comparison
- Seven existing bleeding risk models compared
- Outcome
- Predictive performance (discrimination and calibration) for major bleeding (BARC type 3 or 5)
- Follow-up
- 10 years and original prediction horizon
Methodological detailsprospective cohort
- Prospective cohort
Performance
As reported in the abstract
Discrimination (C-statistic) · 10 years
- C-statistics ranged from 0.53 (95%CI 0.49-0.57) to 0.64 (95%CI 0.60-0.68)
- Best calibration after recalibration to 10 years: De Vries et al, S2TOP-BLEED, DAPT and PRECISE-DAPT
Further findings
Major bleeding events · median follow-up 8.4 years (IQR 4.5-12.5)
- Major bleeding events, 233 events
- 3.2%
Original publication
External validation of bleeding risk models for the prediction of long-term bleeding risk in patients with established cardiovascular disease. Am Heart J. Published 24 February 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →