Contemporary risk model for inhospital major bleeding for patients with acute myocardial infarction: The acute coronary treatment and intervention outcomes network (ACTION) registry (R)-Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)(R)
Desai, Nihar R.; Kennedy, Kevin F.; Cohen, David J.; Connolly, Traci; Diercks, Deborah B.; Moscucci, Mauro; Ramee, Stephen; Spertus, John; Wang, Tracy Y.; McNamara, Robert L.
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.