system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: BACKGROUND, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: Anticoagulants, Blood Coagulation, Female, Hemorrhage, Humans, Logistic Models, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome, Venous Thromboembolism, Venous Thrombosis.
user
Do cRUSADE bleeding risk score validation for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention? Context: The CRUSADE bleeding risk score (CBRS) accurately predicts major bleeding in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction NSTEMI patients. However, little information exists about its application in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction STEMI. We aimed to assess the ability of CBRS to predict in-hospital major bleeding in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We prospectively analyzed consecutive STEMI patients undergoing PPCI. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital complications and mid term mortality were recorded. Major bleeding was defined by the CRUSADE definition. Predictive ability of the CBRS was assessed by logistic regression method and the area under the ROC curve (AUC). We included 1064 patients (mean age 63years). Mean CBRS value was 24. Most of patients (740/1064 (69.6%)) were in the two lowest risk quintiles of CBRS. Incidence of in-hospital major bleeding was 33/1064 (3.1%). The rates of in-hospital bleeding across the quintiles of risk groups were 0.4% (very low risk), 2.6% (low), 4.6% (moderate), 7.2% (high), and 13.4% (very high) (p 0.001). AUC was 0.80 (95% CI 0.73-0.87 p 0.001). In patients with radial access angiography (n=621) AUC was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.65-0.97). Mean follow up was 344days. Patients with bleeding events had higher mortality during follow up (HR 6.91; 95% CI 3.72-12.82; p 0.001).
assistant
Our patients had a significantly lower bleeding risk as compared to CRUSADE NSTEMI population. CBRS accurately predicted major in-hospital bleeding in this different clinical scenario, including patients with radial artery approach. Final Decision: yes