Background: The CRUSADE, ACTION and ACUITY-HORIZONS bleeding scores have been derived using Caucasian patients, and little is known about which has the better predictive ability in Chinese patients, especially for patients with STEMI.Methods and Results:We retrospectively analyzed 2,208 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI (PPCI). Major bleeding events were defined according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria (type 3 or 5). Predictive ability of the 3 scores was assessed using logistic regression and AUC. Unadjusted HR for 1-year death were determined on Cox proportional hazard modeling. The major bleeding rate was 2.4%. The AUC of the CRUSADE, ACTION and ACUTIY-HORIZONS models was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.92), 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.94), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.87-0.94). The calibration of the ACUTIY-HORIZONS model was not acceptable overall, or in the subgroup of access site (P<0.05). In the high-risk category, 1-year mortality was approximately 4-7-fold greater than in the low-risk category (CRUSADE: HR, 7.27; 95% CI: 3.30-16.02, P<0.001; ACTION: HR, 7.13; 95% CI: 2.19-15.41, P<0.001; ACUITY-HORIZONS: HR, 4.06; 95% CI: 1.62-10.16; P=0.003).
Conclusions: The CRUSADE and ACTION scores have greater predictive ability for in-hospital major bleeding than the ACUITY-HORIZONS risk score in Chinese STEMI patients undergoing PPCI. Mortality would increase with the transition from low- to high-risk category in 1 year.
Keywords: Chinese; Hemorrhage; Risk score; ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.