Contemporary risk model for inhospital major bleeding for patients with acute myocardial infarction: The acute coronary treatment and intervention outcomes network (ACTION) registry®-Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)®

Am Heart J. 2017 Dec:194:16-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2017.08.004. Epub 2017 Aug 12.

Abstract

Background: Major bleeding is a frequent complication for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

Objective: To develop a contemporary model for inhospital major bleeding that can both support clinical decision-making and serve as a foundation for assessing hospital quality.

Methods: An inhospital major bleeding model was developed using the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines (ACTION Registry-GWTG) database. Patients hospitalized with AMI between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013 across 657 hospitals were used to create a derivation cohort (n=144,800) and a validation cohort (n=96,684). Multivariable hierarchal logistic regression was used to identify significant predictors of major bleeding. A simplified risk score was created to enable prospective risk stratification for clinical care.

Results: The rate of major bleeding in the overall population was 7.53%. There were 8 significant, independent factors associated with major bleeding: presentation after cardiac arrest (OR 2.99 [2.77-3.22]); presentation in cardiogenic shock (OR 2.22 [2.05-2.40]); STEMI (OR 1.72 [1.65-1.80]); presentation in heart failure (OR 1.55 [1.47-1.63]); baseline hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL (1.55 [1.48-1.63]); heart rate (per 10 beat per minute increase) (OR 1.13 [1.12-1.14]); weight (per 10 kilogram decrease) (OR 1.12 [1.11-1.14]); creatinine clearance (per 5-mL decrease) (OR 1.07 [1.07-1.08]). The model discriminated well in the derivation (C-statistic = 0.74) and validation (C-statistic = 0.74) cohorts. In the validation cohort, a risk score for major bleeding corresponded well with observed bleeding: very low risk (2.2%), low risk (5.1%), moderate risk (10.1%), high risk (16.3%), and very high risk (25.2%).

Conclusion: The new ACTION Registry-GWTG inhospital major bleeding risk model and risk score offer a robust, parsimonious, and contemporary risk-adjustment method to support clinical decision-making and enable hospital quality assessment. Strategies to mitigate risk should be developed and tested as a means to lower costs and improve outcomes in an era of alternative payment models.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Clinical Decision-Making
  • Female
  • Hemorrhage / epidemiology*
  • Hemorrhage / etiology
  • Hospital Mortality / trends
  • Humans
  • Incidence
  • Inpatients*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Myocardial Infarction / therapy*
  • Practice Guidelines as Topic*
  • Prospective Studies
  • Registries*
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Assessment*
  • Risk Factors
  • Thrombolytic Therapy / adverse effects*
  • United States / epidemiology