Incidence, predictors and prognostic impact of intracranial bleeding within the first year after an acute coronary syndrome in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rate of intracranial haemorrhage after an acute coronary syndrome has been studied in detail in the era of thrombolysis; however, in the contemporary era of percutaneous coronary intervention, most of the data have been derived from clinical trials. With this background, we aim to analyse the incidence, timing, predictors and prognostic impact of post-discharge intracranial haemorrhage in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We analysed data from the BleeMACS registry (patients discharged for acute coronary syndrome and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from Europe, Asia and America, 2003-2014). Analyses were conducted using a competing risk framework. Uni and multivariate predictors of intracranial haemorrhage were assessed using the Fine-Gray proportional hazards regression analysis. The endpoint was 1-year post-discharge intracranial haemorrhage. RESULTS: Of 11,136 patients, 30 presented with intracranial haemorrhage during the first year (0.27%). The median time to intracranial haemorrhage was 150 days (interquartile range 55.7-319.5). The fatality rate of intracranial haemorrhage was very high (30%). After multivariate analysis, only age (subhazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.07) and prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack (hazard ratio 3.29, 95% confidence interval 1.36-8.00) were independently associated with a higher risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Hypertension showed a trend to associate with higher intracranial haemorrhage rate. The combination of older age (⩾75 years), prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack, and/or hypertension allowed us to identify most of the patients with intracranial haemorrhage (86.7%). The annual rate of intracranial haemorrhage was 0.1% in patients with no risk factors, 0.2% in those with one factor, 0.6% in those with two factors and 1.3% in those with three factors. CONCLUSION: The incidence of intracranial haemorrhage in the first year after an acute coronary syndrome treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is low. Advanced age, previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack, and hypertension are the main predictors of increased intracranial haemorrhage risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".