A Systematic Review on Bleeding Risk Scores' Accuracy after Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Acute and Elective Settings

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) is recommended for all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as it significantly reduces the ischemic risk at the cost of increasing the incidence of bleeding events. Several clinical predictive models were developed to better stratify the bleeding risk associated with DAT. This systematic review aims to perform a literature survey of both standard and emerging bleeding risk scores and report their performance on predicting hemorrhagic events, especially in the era of second-generation drug-eluting stents and more potent P2Y12 inhibitors. We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases for full-text studies that developed or validated bleeding risk scores in adult patients undergoing PCI with subsequent DAT. The risk of bias for each study was assessed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). Eighteen studies were included in the present systematic review. Bleeding risk scores showed a modest to good discriminatory power with c-statistic ranging from 0.49 (95% CI, 0.45-0.53) to 0.82 (95% CI, 0.80-0.85). Clinical models that predict in-hospital bleeding events had a relatively good predictive performance, with c-statistic ranging from 0.70 (95% CI, 0.67-0.72) to 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73-0.87), depending on the risk scores and major hemorrhagic event definition used. The knowledge and utilization of the current bleeding risk scores in appropriate clinical contexts could improve the prediction of bleeding events.

Automated summary

This systematic review included 18 studies and found that bleeding risk scores have modest to good discriminatory power, with clinical models performing relatively well in predicting in-hospital bleeding events. Knowledge and utilization of current bleeding risk scores can improve the prediction of bleeding events in appropriate clinical contexts.