Standardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials
Advances in antithrombotic therapy, along with an early invasive strategy, have reduced the incidence of recurrent ischemic events and death in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS; unstable angina, non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction [MI], and ST-segment–elevation MI).1–4 However, the combination of multiple pharmacotherapies, including aspirin, platelet P2Y12 inhibitors, heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, direct thrombin inhibitors, and the increasing use of invasive procedures, has also been associated with an increased risk of bleeding.
Editorial see p 2664
Bleeding complications have been associated with an increased risk of subsequent adverse outcomes, including MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and death, in patients with ACS and in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI),5–10 as well as in the long-term antithrombotic setting.11,12 Thus, balancing the anti-ischemic benefits against the bleeding risk of antithrombotic agents and interventions is of paramount importance in assessing new therapies and in managing patients. Prior randomized trials comparing antithrombotic agents suggest that a reduction in bleeding events is associated with improved survival.13,14
Because prevention of major bleeding may represent an important step in improving outcomes by balancing safety and efficacy in the contemporary treatment of ACS, bleeding events have been systematically identified as a crucial end point for the assessment of the safety of drugs during the course of randomized clinical trials, and are an important aspect of the evaluation of new devices and interventional therapies.15 Unlike ischemic clinical events (eg, cardiac death, MI, stent thrombosis), for which there is now general consensus on end-point definitions,16,17 there is substantial heterogeneity among the many bleeding definitions currently in use. Lack of standardization makes it difficult to optimally organize key clinical trial processes such as adjudication, and even more difficult to interpret relative safety comparisons of different antithrombotic agents across studies, or even within a given trial, because results may vary according to the definition(s) used for bleeding. Finally, as reflected by the various terms used to describe bleeding (serious, severe, catastrophic, major, life-threatening, etc), the heterogeneity of definitions may undermine the ability of clinical trials to meaningfully define the balance of safety and efficacy in vascular interventions.
In response to the need to develop, disseminate, and ultimately adopt standardized bleeding end-point definitions for patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) convened in February 2010 at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) headquarters in White Oak, MD. Modeled after the 2006 Academic Research Consortium, which standardized key ischemic end-point definitions in studies aimed at evaluating coronary stents,17 the BARC effort brought together representatives from academic research organizations, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and pharmaceutical and cardiovascular device manufacturers and independent physician thought leaders in the field of cardiovascular disease to develop consensus bleeding definitions that would be useful for cardiovascular clinical trials. Application of these definitions is recommended for both clinical trials and registries.
Importance of Bleeding as an End Point
Hemorrhagic complications occur with a frequency of 1% to 10% during treatment for ACS and after PCI.18–20 This wide variability in the measured incidence is due to several factors, including differences in patient characteristics, concomitant therapies, timing of event reporting, and definitions across data sets. Regardless of the definition used, several studies have demonstrated that bleeding is associated with an increased risk for short- and long-term adverse outcomes, including death,18,20 nonfatal MI,6 stroke,5 and stent thrombosis.9 The exact mechanisms underlying this relationship are not known, but may include the cessation of evidence-based therapies, including antiplatelet agents, β-blockers, and/or statin therapies, in patients who suffer bleeding complications,21,22 the direct effects of blood transfusion used to treat bleeding,20,23 or greater prevalence of comorbidities in patients who bleed,21 as well as a deleterious role of anemia.24
The relationship between bleeding and morbidity and mortality is underscored by studies demonstrating that bleeding reduction strategies are associated with improved survival in patients with ACS and those undergoing PCI. The data summarized inTable 1 emphasize the importance of bleeding as a common, clinically relevant safety event. To optimize both the end point and its role in clinical trial designs, a consistent approach to collecting bleeding data and adjudicating events is critical.30 Toward this end, a thoughtful, broadly based consensus definition of what constitutes a bleeding event, similar to what has been done with MI and stent thrombosis, is the objective of BARC efforts.17
|Study||Setting, Design||Primary Definition*||Patients||Patients With Bleeding, n (%)||Outcomes in Patients With Major or Severe Bleeding vs No Bleeding|
|Early Deaths (In Hospital or at 30 d)||Deaths up to 1 y|
|Death Rates, %||Adjusted Risk Ratio for Death (95% CI)||Death Rates, %||Adjusted Risk Ratio for Death (95% CI)|
|Kinnaird et al,7 2003||PCI, registry||TIMI||10 974||588 (5.4)||7.5 vs 0.6||3.5 (1.9–6.7)||17.2 vs 5.5||Not significant†|
|GRACE,10 2003||ACS, registry||GRACE||24 045||933 (3.9)||18.6 vs 5.1||1.6 (1.2–2.3)||…||…|
|GRACE,21 2007||ACS, registry||GRACE||40 087||1140 (2.8)||20.9 vs 5.6||1.9 (1.6–2.2)||7.9 vs 5.2||0.8 (0.6–1.0)|
|REPLACE-2,25 2007||PCI, RCT||REPLACE-2/ISAR-REACT 3||6001||195 (3.2)||5.1 vs 0.2||…||8.7 vs 1.9||2.7 (1.4–4.9)|
|Rao et al,6 2005||NSTE-ACS, meta-analysis of RCTs||GUSTO||26 452||107 (0.4)||25.7 vs 2.9||10.6 (8.3–13.6)||35.1 vs 4.2||7.5 (6.1–9.3)|
|Eikelboom et al,5 2006||NSTE-ACS, meta-analysis of RCTs/registry||CURE||34 146||783 (2.3)||12.8 vs 2.5||9.8 (7.5–12.7)||4.6 vs 2.9‡||1.9 (1.3–2.8)|
|ACUITY,9 2007||NSTE-ACS, RCT||ACUITY||13 819||644 (4.7)||7.3 vs 1.2||7.6 (4.7–12.2)||…||3.5 (2.7–4.4)|
|Ndrepepa et al,15 2008||PCI, meta-analysis of RCTs||TIMI||5384||215 (4.0; n=59 major/n=156 minor)||…||…||12.2 vs 3.3||4.1 (2.1–8.3)|
|EVENT,26 2009||PCI, registry||TIMI||5961||(3.0 overall: 0.7 major, 2.3 minor)||…||…||15.6 vs 2.4||3.8 (2.5–5.9)|
|OASIS-5,27 2009||NSTE-ACS, RCT||ESSENCE||20 078||990 (4.9): major, 423 (2.1) minor||8.4 vs 2.7||3.5 (2.6–4.6)||14.3 vs 5.4||3.1 (2.6–3.8)|
|Amlani et al,28 2010||STEMI, registry||Protocol defined||1389||152 (10.9)||19.7 vs 8.2||2.8 (1.8–4.3)||…||…|
|ISAR-REACT 3,29 2010||PCI, RCT||REPLACE-2/ISAR-REACT 3||4570||555 (12.1) 174 major/381 minor||…||…||5.2 vs 1.3||4.1 (2.6–6.5)|
Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Composition and Goals
An informal collaboration among academic research organizations from the United States and Europe, joined by representatives from the FDA and device manufacturers, led to a consensus document to standardize clinical end points for coronary stent trials.17 This Academic Research Consortium developed a rapid, scholarly, and clinically relevant process resulting in a portfolio of clinical end-point definitions that were endorsed by the FDA and broadly incorporated into clinical trial end points.31,32 The Academic Research Consortium process was a demonstration of effective collaboration among the academic community, FDA, and industry to respond to safety concerns over drug-eluting stents and to improve the conduct of clinical research. This initiative has since been expanded to other clinical domains, including percutaneous valves and peripheral arterial disease, and the effort to establish standardized bleeding definitions presented in this consensus document. These standardized definitions are intended to allow the clinical community to determine the relative safety of different antithrombotic strategies, to provide the industry with a framework in which to evaluate the safety of emerging antithrombotic therapies, and potentially to enhance the regulatory review of new anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs.
Heterogeneity of Bleeding Definitions Across Trials
Several definitions of bleeding have been used in published clinical trials and registries.33–35Table 2 highlights the lack of uniformity in bleeding definitions among recent ACS and PCI clinical trials. Current bleeding definitions consist of both laboratory parameters, such as decreases in hemoglobin and hematocrit scores, and clinical events, including the need for transfusion or surgery, cardiac tamponade, hematomas, and various degrees of bleeding. Each definition incorporates a different combination of these data elements and then rank orders these combinations into severity categories, which vary widely between definitions.
|TIMI6,37,38||Non-CABG related bleeding
|Amlani et al28||Major
The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) bleeding criteria have been in use for nearly 30 years, and have been reported in most cardiovascular trials. These criteria were developed during the early TIMI trials to define and classify major and minor hemorrhagic events in patients with ST-segment–elevation MI treated with a fibrinolytic drug. The original TIMI definition relies predominantly on laboratory data elements based on decreases in hemoglobin or hematocrit values after adjustment for the effect of blood transfusion.36 Over time, the definitions have evolved to represent a broader range of bleeding categories and events while specifically defining each individual category.37–42 The current updated TIMI definition is shown in Table 2.42,43 Potential limitations of the criteria include that they were developed in the fibrinolytic era, and thus typically characterized severe acute events and difficulties with perception of the nomenclature (eg, many would consider TIMI minor bleeding to hold greater clinical significance than that connoted by the term minor). Common pitfalls that may occur when the TIMI definition is applied are recording hemoglobin drops without clinically overt signs as major bleeding events, as well as uncertainty on the timing of assessing hemoglobin values that may lead to inappropriate peaks and nadirs related to bleeding, therefore obscuring the timing of the bleeding in relation to the intervention. The TIMI criteria also characterize 3 different types of death in relation to bleeding: fatal bleeding, when a bleeding event directly leads to death within 7 days (eg, an intracranial hemorrhage that leads to herniation of the brain and death, hemopericardium that results in death, and a massive gastrointestinal hemorrhage that results in shock, hemodynamic collapse, and death); bleeding contributing to death (ie, a death in which a bleeding event was part of a causal chain of medical events that ultimately led to death within 30 days of the bleed, but bleeding did not directly and/or immediately relate to subject's death; an example is a bleed resulting in discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy followed by stent thrombosis and death); and death unrelated to a bleeding event (the death was unrelated to bleeding because either there was no clinically significant bleeding in the month before death or the bleeding event did not contribute to the subject's death).
The Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries (GUSTO) definition of bleeding has also been implemented in a number of trials over the past 2 decades.44 GUSTO bleeding criteria were initially used to identify significant bleeding in the setting of fibrinolytic therapy for ST-segment–elevation MI. Its various components combine to define bleeding on a graded scale of severity based on clinical acuity and impact. Notably, the GUSTO definition differs from several other definitions in that it does not require changes in hemoglobin, nor does it quantify the amount of blood transfused. Because the GUSTO bleeding criterion is clinically driven, the gradations of bleeding severity track well with risk of death/MI.45 However, the GUSTO definition also has limitations. In addition to the fact that it was conceived during the fibrinolytic era, adjudication by a clinical events committee is often challenging, given lack of objective standardized criterion. Consequently, outcomes may not be consistent across geographic regions because thresholds for intervention and transfusion vary, depending on local patterns of clinical practice, imaging use, blood banking, etc. Thus, applying this definition requires unique attention to thorough adjudication processes to ensure that outcomes are consistently captured and to statistical analyses to ensure against regional outlier effects.
More recently, bleeding definitions in ACS and PCI trials have combined both laboratory and clinical parameters in an attempt to leverage the strengths and overcome the limitations of the TIMI and GUSTO definitions. Several trials have incorporated a combination of elements from both the TIMI and GUSTO definition,46,47 have modified these elements,13,49–53 or have added new parameters.48,52–54 The Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events (CURE), Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY), Organization for the Assessment of Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS), Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in PCI Patients, an International Randomized Evaluation (STEEPLE), and Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trials, among others, have used different definitions for major/severe and minor bleeding (Table 2). The ACUITY48 and Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI)52 bleeding definitions are identical and were developed by adapting the components of TIMI major and GUSTO severe/moderate bleeding that are relevant to patients undergoing PCI.
Challenges to Creating a Universal Bleeding Definition
There are several challenges in creating a universal bleeding definition.55 It is crucial to first consider the purpose. A comprehensive bleeding classification is required that captures information about the cause (procedural or nonprocedural), site (intraocular, intracranial, visceral, peritoneal, access site, etc), and severity (quantified by impact on laboratory data and clinical status) of bleeding. Such a classification should correlate closely with prognosis and should be able to direct specific diagnostic and treatment protocols. Moreover, the different bleeding categories and the classification system should be carefully considered, whether descriptive such as major or life-threatening or objective using numeric or alphanumeric score. Ideally, a standardized definition should be able to address all these issues. In addition, the definition should be practical and easy to use; ie, it should be based on data that can be readily collected by sites, monitored, and adjudicated.
A key challenge is to maintain an appropriate balance between sensitivity and specificity of criteria to optimize the ability to detect dose response or to discern small variations between therapies while arriving at clinically meaningful conclusions. As noted in the coronary effort,17 it is generally recognized that no universal definition can be crafted that is perfectly accurate (sensitive and specific) or that is perfect for all applications. The value of a consensus definition that is used consistently across clinical trials is not dependent on perfection.
Nomenclature presents another challenge. Depending on context, the meanings of terms change; if a nuisance bleed encourages a patient to stop taking beneficial medications, it can still have major importance in other senses. Moreover, the site of bleeding affects its relationship with mortality. For example, non–access-site bleeds may have a more significant impact on the likelihood of death/MI than access-site bleeding.55a The duration of follow-up also matters, and there may be unmeasured factors. The definitions also change over time. It is not yet known which components of a bleeding definition are predictors of mortality; large groin hematomas, for example, appear less detrimental than TIMI major bleeding or ACUITY major bleeding with or without transfusion.56 Furthermore, adjudication of bleeding events is a process that does not solely revolve around a definition. Bleeding rates depend on several factors, including how aggressively investigators seek to ascertain information, how definitions are written, and how the definitions are applied. These aspects can complicate the interpretation of safety results from clinical trials, a fact underscored by the complexity of current treatment guidelines.1,2,57 Short of a comprehensive analysis of very large databases of prospectively acquired detailed bleeding data linking various definitions to subsequent clinical outcomes, which is still lacking, the optimal universal bleeding definition can be arrived at only through expert consensus because the expert consensus process allows weighing and balancing multiple options.
Special Considerations for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft–Related Bleeding Definition
Bleeding after cardiac surgery is a serious complication, and excessive blood loss frequently results in transfusion of allogeneic blood, blood products, or surgical re-exploration. Most studies have traditionally not considered coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)–related bleeding, but because up to 12% of ACS patients may undergo CABG58 during the index hospitalization, the BARC group felt that it was important to include CABG-related bleeding in the BARC consensus document. Because CABG surgery is one of the rare instances of surgery performed under full anticoagulation and because transfusion is inherent to cardiopulmonary bypass, it is difficult to define a threshold for bleeding in CABG that would separate the amount of bleeding expected during routine surgery from the unusual or unexpected. It is even more difficult to determine the thresholds for CABG bleeding that are related to a change in prognosis. Mean postoperative chest tube output during the first 24 hours after standard CABG is estimated to be 400±200 mL and up to 1200 mL in patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy including clopidogrel.59–62 Bleeding is similar with off-pump CABG and on-pump CABG.63 Five percent to 7% of patients lose >2 L of blood within the first 24 hours after surgery,64 and up to 5% require reintervention for bleeding after sternotomy closure.65
Both surgical re-exploration and red blood cell transfusion are associated in a dose-dependent and often durable manner with prolonged intensive care and hospital stays and reduced survival rates.66,67 There are international differences in the threshold for transfusions and probably also for rates of reoperation for bleeding associated with the use of scorecards.68
In a pooled analysis of the ACUITY and HORIZONS-AMI trials, CABG-related major ACUITY-graded bleeding in a time-adjusted baseline covariate-adjusted Cox model of 1600 patients did not independently predict subsequent 12-month mortality (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.80; P=0.34).69
Rather than developing a specific set of data elements distinct from other types of BARC bleeding (Table 3), BARC was guided with the following principles in developing the definition for BARC type 4 (CABG-related) bleeding. First, BARC CABG-related bleeding definitions must include the same criteria for fatal bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, need for intervention to control bleeding, and number of transfusions as BARC non–CABG-related bleeding. Second, specific criteria for the amount of chest tube drainage need to be included. Third, if bleeding does not meet the severity criteria for at least a BARC type 3 event, it will not be counted as an event. Fourth, specific time intervals will need to apply for CABG-related events: up to 48 hours for transfusions and intracranial bleeding and within a 24 hour period for excessive chest tube drainage. It is appropriate that there will be no time window for the occurrence of fatal bleeding. It is important to note that the temporal relationship of the bleeding event to the CABG surgery is the primary factor that differentiates type 4 bleeding from type 3 bleeding. Therefore, if a bleeding event occurs during the specified time frame in relation to a CABG procedure but does not meet type 4 severity markers, it will not be adjudicated as a bleeding event. It is also noteworthy to include that only allogenic transfusions are considered transfusions for CABG-related bleeds.
Because CABG-related bleeding is so common, it may overwhelm the incidence of non-CABG bleeding, especially in drug trials. Thus, comparing the effects of treatments on total bleeding rates may not be significantly different between the treatments, even though non-CABG bleeding rates may be significantly different.70 It is important to report total, CABG-related, and non–CABG-related bleeding separately. In addition, BARC acknowledges that there is a need to know when to stop drugs with a propensity to cause bleeding with CABG (and with other types of surgery). Further research is required to better define the risk associated with CABG bleeding and the effect of components of the definition, particularly transfusions of (different) blood products on subsequent mortality.
In developing a universal bleeding definition, BARC was driven by the following criteria: (1) The definitions should apply in a broad clinical context, and hence will be applicable to cardiovascular clinical trials and/or registries in which bleeding is used as an end point; (2) although CABG-related bleeding may potentially relate to either technical issues or drug effects, BARC acknowledges a need to report CABG-related, non–CABG-related, and total bleeding rates separately and the effects of treatment; and (3) bleeding should be reported in a hierarchical manner characterizing severity with a graded numeric system nomenclature, not with subjective or descriptive terms such as minor or nuisance. Importantly, after a consensus report is proposed, it should result in an end-point definition that will be embraced by the clinical research community, by pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, by regulatory agencies, and ultimately in clinical practice. Finally, the definition should be validated against data sets from several trials.
Proposed Bleeding Definition
Type 0: no evidence of bleeding.
Type 1: bleeding that is not actionable and does not cause the patient to seek unscheduled performance of studies, hospitalization, or treatment by a healthcare professional. Examples include, but are not limited to, bruising, hematoma, nosebleeds, or hemorrhoidal bleeding for which the patient does not seek medical attention. Type 1 bleeding may include episodes that lead to discontinuation of medications by the patient because of bleeding without visiting a healthcare provider.
Type 2: any clinically overt sign of hemorrhage (eg, more bleeding than would be expected for a clinical circumstance, including bleeding found by imaging alone) that is actionable but does not meet criteria for type 3, type 4 (CABG-related), or type 5 (fatal bleeding) BARC bleeding. The bleeding must require diagnostic studies, hospitalization, or treatment by a healthcare professional. In particular, the bleeding must meet at least one of the following criteria: First, it requires intervention, defined as a healthcare professional–guided medical treatment or percutaneous intervention to stop or treat bleeding, including temporarily or permanently discontinuing a medication or study drug. Examples include, but are not limited to, coiling, compression, use of reversal agents (eg, vitamin K, protamine), local injections to reduce oozing, or a temporary/permanent cessation of antiplatelet, antithrombin, or fibrinolytic therapy. Second, the bleeding leads to hospitalization or an increased level of care, defined as leading to or prolonging hospitalization or transfer to a hospital unit capable of providing a higher level of care. Or third, the bleeding prompts evaluation, defined as leading to an unscheduled visit to a healthcare professional resulting in diagnostic testing (laboratory or imaging). Examples include, but are not limited to, hematocrit testing, hemoccult testing, endoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomography scanning, or urinalysis. A visit or phone call to a healthcare professional during which neither testing nor treatment is undertaken does not constitute type 2 bleeding.
Type 3: clinical, laboratory, and/or imaging evidence of bleeding with specific healthcare provider responses, as listed below:
—Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3a bleeding
Any transfusion with overt bleeding
Overt bleeding plus hemoglobin drop ≥3 to <5 g/dL (provided hemoglobin drop is related to bleeding). Hemoglobin drop should be corrected for intracurrent transfusion in which 1 U packed red blood cells or 1 U whole blood would be expected to increase hemoglobin by 1 g/dL.
—Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3b bleeding
Overt bleeding plus hemoglobin drop ≥5 g/dL (provided hemoglobin drop is related to bleed). Hemoglobin drop should be corrected for intracurrent transfusion in which 1 U packed red blood cells or 1 U whole blood would be expected to increase hemoglobin by 1 g/dL.
Bleeding requiring surgical intervention for control (excluding dental/nasal/skin/hemorrhoid)
Bleeding requiring intravenous vasoactive drugs
—Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3c bleeding
Intracranial hemorrhage (does not include microbleeds or hemorrhagic transformation; does include intraspinal); subcategories confirmed by autopsy, imaging, or lumbar puncture
Intraocular bleed compromising vision
—Type 4: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft–related bleeding
Perioperative intracranial bleeding within 48 hours
Reoperation after closure of sternotomy for the purpose of controlling bleeding
Transfusion of ≥5 U whole blood or packed red blood cells within a 48-hour period (only allogenic transfusions are considered transfusions for CABG-related bleeds)
Chest tube output ≥2 L within a 24-hour period
Notes: If a CABG-related bleed is not adjudicated as at least a type 3 severity event, it will be classified as not a bleeding event. If a bleeding event occurs with a clear temporal relationship to CABG (ie, within a 48-hour time frame) but does not meet type 4 severity criteria, it will be classified as not a bleeding event.
—Type 5: Fatal bleeding
Fatal bleeding is bleeding that directly causes death with no other explainable cause. BARC fatal bleeding is categorized as either definite or probable as follows:
Probable fatal bleeding (type 5a) is bleeding that is clinically suspicious as the cause of death, but the bleeding is not directly observed and there is no autopsy or confirmatory imaging.
Definite fatal bleeding (type 5b) is bleeding that is directly observed (by either clinical specimen [blood, emesis, stool, etc] or imaging) or confirmed on autopsy.
The site of fatal bleeding is specified as intracranial, gastrointestinal, retroperitoneal, pulmonary, pericardial, genitourinary, or other.
Bleeding Academic Research Consortium fatal bleeding is meant to capture deaths that are directly due to bleeding with no other cause. The time interval from the bleeding event to the death should be considered with respect to likely causality, but there is no specific time limit proposed. Bleeding that is contributory but not directly causal to death is not classified as fatal bleeding but may be categorized as other forms of bleeding. Bleeding that leads to cessation of antithrombotic or other therapies may be contributory but again would not be classified as fatal bleeding. Bleeding associated with trauma or with surgery may be fatal, depending on whether it was determined to be directly causal or not.
Examples of potential scenarios consistent with BARC fatal bleeding include the following: (1) A patient who receives a fibrinolytic agent for a small inferior MI loses consciousness and dies; autopsy shows an intracranial hemorrhage with mass effect: definite fatal bleed, intracranial; (2) a patient who receives a fibrinolytic agent for a large anterior MI loses consciousness and develops cardiac arrest; clinical examination immediately earlier showed a dilated left pupil: probable fatal bleed, intracranial; (3) a post-PCI patient on dual antiplatelet therapy who has a witnessed large gastrointestinal bleed becomes hypotensive and dies: definite fatal bleed, gastrointestinal; and (4) a patient develops a gastrointestinal bleed that is successfully cauterized; 3 days later, the gastroenterologist stops dual antiplatelet therapy and the patient has a fatal MI: not a fatal bleed.
Bleeding End-Point Reporting
Bleeding Academic Research Consortium recommends defining the timing of events according to the clinical trial and according to the particular pharmacotherapy or intervention being studied, but at least at 7 days, 30 days, and/or at the end of the trial.
Herein we have proposed a new objective, hierarchically graded, consensus classification for bleeding. After a review of the data and prior definitions, this new BARC categorization was reached by consensus of several groups with experience in considering end points in cardiovascular clinical trials and registries. Validation of these proposed consensus definitions is still needed. We strongly urge trialists and sponsors to begin reporting bleeding events according to BARC definitions in all research efforts from this point forward, even if in conjunction with other definitions. The universality of the definition will overcome the inherent limitations of a consensus-based effort and will allow comprehensive and consistent reporting of bleeding in future clinical investigations.
Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Participants
Academic Research Organizations
Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Pascal Vranckx, MD. Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY: Adriano Caixeta, MD, PhD; Roxana Mehran, MD; Eugenia Nikolsky, MD, PhD. Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Center for Clinical Research, Cleveland, OH: Venu Menon, MD. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC: E. Magnus Ohman, MD; Sunil Rao, MD. Green Lane Coordinating Center, Auckland, New Zealand: Harvey White, MB ChB, DSc. TIMI Study Group, Boston, MA: Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH; Stephen D. Wiviott, MD. Pharmacological/Percutaneous Endoluminal Revascularization for Unstable Syndromes and Its Evaluation (PERFUSE), Boston, MA: C. Michael Gibson, MD.
Physician Society Representatives and Experts
John Eikelboom, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Sanjay Kaul, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA; Yves Rosenberg, MD, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Washington, DC; Victor Serebruany, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Hopital Bichat, Paris, France; Marco Valgimigli, MD, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
US Food and Drug Administration
Ashley B. Boam; Karen Hicks, MD; Bram Zuckerman, MD.
Isabela Batsu, MD, sanofi-aventis; Rogelio Braceras, MD, Daiichi-Sankyo; James J. Ferguson, MD, The Medicines Company; Dan M. Jolivette, MD, Medtronic, Inc; Juan Maya, MD, AstraZeneca; Krishnan Ramaswamy, MD, Daiichi-Sankyo; Simona Skerjanec, PharmD, The Medicines Company; Hans Peter Stoll, MD, Cordis Corp, a Johnson & Johnson Co; Paul Underwood, MD, Boston Scientific Corp; Neal Wolff, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Steven Zelenkofske, DO, Regado Biosciences.
We wish to thank Maria Alu for manuscript preparation, editorial services, and logistical management of the BARC meetings and communications.
Sources of Funding
Grants were provided to the Cardiovascular Research Foundation to cover the costs of travel, lodging, and meeting expenses for academic attendees to the meeting in Silver Spring, MD, by
Dr Bhatt has received research grants from
The BARC meetings involved members of the Interventional Cardiology Devices Branch of the Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US FDA. The opinions or assertions herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as reflecting the views of the FDA.
Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, Bridges CR, Califf RM, Casey DE, Chavey WE, Fesmire FM, Hochman JS, Levin TN, Lincoff AM, Peterson ED, Theroux P, Wenger NK, Wright RS, Smith SC, Jacobs AK, Halperin JL, Hunt SA, Krumholz HM, Kushner FG, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Ornato JP, Page RL, Riegel B. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50:e1–e157.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bassand JP, Hamm CW, Ardissino D, Boersma E, Budaj A, Fernandez-Aviles F, Fox KA, Hasdai D, Ohman EM, Wallentin L, Wijns W. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28:1598–1660.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fox KA, Steg PG, Eagle KA, Goodman SG, Anderson FA, Granger CB, Flather MD, Budaj A, Quill A, Gore JM. Decline in rates of death and heart failure in acute coronary syndromes, 1999–2006. JAMA. 2007; 297:1892–1900.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Rassi AN, Bhatt DL, Askari AT. Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48:1319–1325.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Eikelboom JW, Mehta SR, Anand SS, Xie C, Fox KA, Yusuf S. Adverse impact of bleeding on prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2006; 114:774–782.LinkGoogle Scholar
Rao SV, O'Grady K, Pieper KS, Granger CB, Newby LK, Van de Werf F, Mahaffey KW, Califf RM, Harrington RA. Impact of bleeding severity on clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol. 2005; 96:1200–1206.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kinnaird TD, Stabile E, Mintz GS, Lee CW, Canos DA, Gevorkian N, Pinnow EE, Kent KM, Pichard AD, Satler LF, Weissman NJ, Lindsay J, Fuchs S. Incidence, predictors, and prognostic implications of bleeding and blood transfusion following percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol. 2003; 92:930–935.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Kirtane AJ, Piazza G, Murphy SA, Budiu D, Morrow DA, Cohen DJ, Peterson E, Lakkis N, Herrmann HC, Palabrica TM, Gibson CM. Correlates of bleeding events among moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with eptifibatide: observations from the PROTECT-TIMI-30 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47:2374–2379.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Manoukian SV, Feit F, Mehran R, Voeltz MD, Ebrahimi R, Hamon M, Dangas GD, Lincoff AM, White HD, Moses JW, King SB, Ohman EM, Stone GW. Impact of major bleeding on 30-day mortality and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an analysis from the ACUITY trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49:1362–1368.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Moscucci M, Fox KA, Cannon CP, Klein W, Lopez-Sendon J, Montalescot G, White K, Goldberg RJ. Predictors of major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes: the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Eur Heart J. 2003; 24:1815–1823.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Berger PB, Bhatt DL, Fuster V, Steg PG, Fox KA, Shao M, Brennan DM, Hacke W, Montalescot G, Steinhubl SR, Topol EJ. Bleeding complications with dual antiplatelet therapy among patients with stable vascular disease or risk factors for vascular disease: results from the Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilization, Management, and Avoidance (CHARISMA) Trial. Circulation. 2010; 121:2575–2583.LinkGoogle Scholar
Ducrocq G, Wallace JS, Baron G, Ravaud P, Alberts MJ, Wilson PWF, Ohman EM, Brennan DM, D'Agostino RB, Bhatt DL, Steg PG. Risk score to predict serious bleeding in stable outpatients with or at risk of atherothrombosis. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31:1257–1265.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Afzal R, Pogue J, Granger CB, Budaj A, Peters RJ, Bassand JP, Wallentin L, Joyner C, Fox KA. Comparison of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354:1464–1476.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mehran R, Lansky AJ, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, Peruga JZ, Brodie BR, Dudek D, Kornowski R, Hartmann F, Gersh BJ, Pocock SJ, Wong SC, Nikolsky E, Gambone L, Vandertie L, Parise H, Dangas GD, Stone GW. Bivalirudin in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction (HORIZONS-AMI): 1-year results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009; 374:1149–1159.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ndrepepa G, Berger PB, Mehilli J, Seyfarth M, Neumann FJ, Schomig A, Kastrati A. Periprocedural bleeding and 1-year outcome after percutaneous coronary interventions: appropriateness of including bleeding as a component of a quadruple end point. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51:690–697.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD, Jaffe AS, Apple FS, Galvani M, Katus HA, Newby LK, Ravkilde J, Chaitman B, Clemmensen PM, Dellborg M, Hod H, Porela P, Underwood R, Bax JJ, Beller GA, Bonow R, Van der Wall EE, Bassand JP, Wijns W, Ferguson TB, Steg PG, Uretsky BF, Williams DO, Armstrong PW, Antman EM, Fox KA, Hamm CW, Ohman EM, Simoons ML, Poole-Wilson PA, Gurfinkel EP, Lopez-Sendon JL, Pais P, Mendis S, Zhu JR, Wallentin LC, Fernandez-Aviles F, Fox KM, Parkhomenko AN, Priori SG, Tendera M, Voipio-Pulkki LM, Vahanian A, Camm AJ, De Caterina R, Dean V, Dickstein K, Filippatos G, Funck-Brentano C, Hellemans I, Kristensen SD, McGregor K, Sechtem U, Silber S, Widimsky P, Zamorano JL, Morais J, Brener S, Harrington R, Morrow D, Lim M, Martinez-Rios MA, Steinhubl S, Levine GN, Gibler WB, Goff D, Tubaro M, Dudek D, Al-Attar N. Universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2007; 116:2634–2653.LinkGoogle Scholar
Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA, Steg PG, Morel MA, Mauri L, Vranckx P, McFadden E, Lansky A, Hamon M, Krucoff MW, Serruys PW. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007; 115:2344–2351.LinkGoogle Scholar
Rao SV, Eikelboom JA, Granger CB, Harrington RA, Califf RM, Bassand JP. Bleeding and blood transfusion issues in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28:1193–1204.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mehta SK, Frutkin AD, Lindsey JB, House JA, Spertus JA, Rao SV, Ou FS, Roe MT, Peterson ED, Marso SP. Bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the development of a clinical risk algorithm from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2:222–229.LinkGoogle Scholar
Doyle BJ, Rihal CS, Gastineau DA, Holmes DR. Bleeding, blood transfusion, and increased mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention: implications for contemporary practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53:2019–2027.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Spencer FA, Moscucci M, Granger CB, Gore JM, Goldberg RJ, Steg PG, Goodman SG, Budaj A, FitzGerald G, Fox KA. Does comorbidity account for the excess mortality in patients with major bleeding in acute myocardial infarction?Circulation. 2007; 116:2793–2801.LinkGoogle Scholar
Wang TY, Xiao L, Alexander KP, Rao SV, Kosiborod MN, Rumsfeld JS, Spertus JA, Peterson ED. Antiplatelet therapy use after discharge among acute myocardial infarction patients with in-hospital bleeding. Circulation. 2008; 118:2139–2145.LinkGoogle Scholar
Rao SV, Jollis JG, Harrington RA, Granger CB, Newby LK, Armstrong PW, Moliterno DJ, Lindblad L, Pieper KS, Topol EJ, Stamler JS, Califf RM. The relationship of blood transfusion and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2004; 292:1555–1562.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, Giugliano RP, Burton PB, Murphy SA, McCabe CH, Gibson CM, Braunwald E. Association of hemoglobin levels with clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2005; 111:2042–2049.LinkGoogle Scholar
Feit FVM, Attubato MJ, Lincoff AM, Chew DP, Bittl JA, Topol EJ, Manoukian SV. Predictors and impact of major hemorrhage on mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention from the REPLACE-2 Trial. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 100:1364–1369.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lindsey JB MS, Pencina M, Stolker JM, Kennedy KF, Rihal C, Barsness G, Piana RN, Goldberg SL, Cutlip DE, Kleiman NS, Cohen DJ; EVENT Registry Investigators. Prognostic importance of bleeding and myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention in unselected patients. JACC Interv. 2009; 2:1074–1082.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Budaj A, Eikelboom JW, Mehta SR, Afzal R, Chrolavicius S, Bassand JP, Fox KA, Wallentin L, Peters RJ, Granger CB, Joyner CD, Yusuf S; OASIS 5 Investigators. Improving clinical outcomes by reducing bleeding in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2009; 30:655–661.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Amlani SNT, Afzal R, Pal-Sayal R, Eikelboom JW, Natarajan MK. Mortality and morbidity following a major bleed in a registry population with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2010; 30:434–40.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ndrepepa GSS, Keta D, Mehilli J, Birkmeier A, Massberg S, Laugwitz KL, Neumann FJ, Seyfarth M, Berger PB, Schomig A, Kastrati A. Bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin and one-year mortality. Am J Cardiol. 2010; 105:163–167.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Rao SV, Eikelboom J, Steg PG, Lincoff AM, Weintraub WS, Bassand JP, Rao AK, Gibson CM, Petersen JL, Mehran R, Manoukian SV, Charnigo R, Lee KL, Moscucci M, Harrington RA. Standardized reporting of bleeding complications for clinical investigations in acute coronary syndromes: a proposal from the Academic Bleeding Consensus (ABC) multidisciplinary working group. Am Heart J. 2009; 158:881–886.e1.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, Sanz M, Hermiller JB, Williams J, Farhat N, Caputo R, Xenopoulos N, Applegate R, Gordon P, White RM, Sudhir K, Cutlip DE, Petersen JL. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year clinical follow-up from the clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions (SPIRIT III) trial. Circulation. 2009; 119:680–686.LinkGoogle Scholar
Kedhi E, Joesoef KS, McFadden E, Wassing J, van Mieghem C, Goedhart D, Smits PCSecond-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 375:201–209.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Steinhubl SR, Kastrati A, Berger PB. Variation in the definitions of bleeding in clinical trials of patients with acute coronary syndromes and undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions and its impact on the apparent safety of antithrombotic drugs. Am Heart J. 2007; 154:3–11.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005; 3:692–694.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Cohen M, Alexander KP, Rao SV. Bleeding after antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute ischemic heart disease: is it the drugs or how we use them?J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2008; 26:175–182.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Chesebro JH, Knatterud G, Roberts R, Borer J, Cohen LS, Dalen J, Dodge HT, Francis CK, Hillis D, Ludbrook P, Markis JE, Mueller H, Passamani ER, Powers ER, Rao AK, Robertson T, Ross A, Ryan TJ, Sobel BE, Willerson J, Williams DO, Zaret BL, Braunwald E. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Trial, phase I: a comparison between intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and intravenous streptokinase: clinical findings through hospital discharge. Circulation. 1987; 76:142–154.LinkGoogle Scholar
Bovill EG, Terrin ML, Stump DC, Berke AD, Frederick M, Collen D, Feit F, Gore JM, Hillis LD, Lambrew CT, Leiboff R, Mann KG, Markis JE, Pratt CM, Sharkey SW, Sopko G, Tracy RP, Chesebro JH. Hemorrhagic events during therapy with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator, heparin, and aspirin for acute myocardial infarction: results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI), phase II trial. Ann Intern Med. 1991; 115:256–265.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S, Neumann FJ, Ardissino D, De Servi S, Murphy SA, Riesmeyer J, Weerakkody G, Gibson CM, Antman EM. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357:2001–2015.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Fuchs J, Cannon CP. Hirulog in the treatment of unstable angina: results of the Thrombin Inhibition in Myocardial Ischemia (TIMI) 7 Trial. Circulation. 1995; 92:727–733.LinkGoogle Scholar
Antman EM, McCabe CH, Gurfinkel EP, Turpie AG, Bernink PJ, Salein D, Bayes De Luna A, Fox K, Lablanche JM, Radley D, Premmereur J, Braunwald E. Enoxaparin prevents death and cardiac ischemic events in unstable angina/non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 11b Trial. Circulation. 1999; 100:1593–1601.LinkGoogle Scholar
Antman EM, McCabe CH, Braunwald E. Bivalirudin as a replacement for unfractionated heparin in unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: observations from the TIMI 8 Trial: the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction. Am Heart J. 2002; 143:229–234.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mega JL BE, Mohanavelu S, Burton P, Poulter R, Misselwitz F, Hricak V, Barnathan ES, Bordes P, Witkowski A, Markov V, Oppenheimer L, Gibson CM; ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46 study group. Rivaroxaban versus placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ATLAS ACS-TIMI 46): a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial. Lancet. 2009; 374:29–38.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Sabatine MS AE, Widimsky P, Ebrahim IO, Kiss RG, Saaiman A, Polasek R, Contant CF, McCabe CH, Braunwald E. Otamixaban for the treatment of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (SEPIA ACS 1 TIMI 42): a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2009; 374:787–795.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 44. GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329:673–682.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Rao SV, O'Grady K, Pieper KS, Granger CB, Newby LK, Mahaffey KW, Moliterno DJ, Lincoff AM, Armstrong PW, Van de Werf F, Califf RM, Harrington RA. A comparison of the clinical impact of bleeding measured by two different classifications among patients with acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47:809–816.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
- 46. Efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in combination with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin: the ASSENT-3 randomised trial in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2001; 358:605–613.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Chen ZM, Jiang LX, Chen YP, Xie JX, Pan HC, Peto R, Collins R, Liu LS. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 366:1607–1621.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Stone GW, Bertrand M, Colombo A, Dangas G, Farkouh ME, Feit F, Lansky AJ, Lincoff AM, Mehran R, Moses JW, Ohman M, White HD. Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial: study design and rationale. Am Heart J. 2004; 148:764–775.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Yusuf S, Zhao F, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius S, Tognoni G, Fox KK. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345:494–502.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Lincoff AM, Kleiman NS, Kereiakes DJ, Feit F, Bittl JA, Jackman JD, Sarembock IJ, Cohen DJ, Spriggs D, Ebrahimi R, Keren G, Carr J, Cohen EA, Betriu A, Desmet W, Rutsch W, Wilcox RG, de Feyter PJ, Vahanian A, Topol EJ. Long-term efficacy of bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade vs heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary revascularization: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA. 2004; 292:696–703.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Montalescot G, White HD, Gallo R, Cohen M, Steg PG, Aylward PE, Bode C, Chiariello M, King SB, Harrington RA, Desmet WJ, Macaya C, Steinhubl SR. Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355:1006–1017.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mehran R, Brodie B, Cox DA, Grines CL, Rutherford B, Bhatt DL, Dangas G, Feit F, Ohman EM, Parise H, Fahy M, Lansky AJ, Stone GW. The Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) Trial: study design and rationale. Am Heart J. 2008; 156:44–56.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mehta SR, Bassand JP, Chrolavicius S, Diaz R, Fox KA, Granger CB, Jolly S, Rupprecht HJ, Widimsky P, Yusuf S. Design and rationale of CURRENT-OASIS 7: a randomized, 2 x 2 factorial trial evaluating optimal dosing strategies for clopidogrel and aspirin in patients with ST and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an early invasive strategy. Am Heart J. 2008; 156:1080–1088.e1.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
James S, Akerblom A, Cannon CP, Emanuelsson H, Husted S, Katus H, Skene A, Steg PG, Storey RF, Harrington R, Becker R, Wallentin L. Comparison of ticagrelor, the first reversible oral P2Y(12) receptor antagonist, with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes: rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Am Heart J. 2009; 157:599–605.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Wallace TW, Rao SV. The challenge of defining bleeding among patients with acute coronary syndromes. Clin Cardiol. 2007; 30:II16–II23.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Verheugt FW, Steinhubl SR, Hamon M, Darius H, Steg PG, Valgimigli M, Marso SP, Rao SV, Gershlick AH, Lincoff AM, Mehran R, Stone GW. Incidence, prognostic impact, and influence of antithrombotic therapy on access and nonaccess site bleeding in percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4:191–197.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
White HD, Aylward PE, Gallo R, Bode C, Steg G, Steinhubl SR, Montalescot G. Hematomas of at least 5 cm and outcomes in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in PCI Patients, an International Randomized Evaluation (STEEPLE) trial. Am Heart J. 2010; 159:110–116.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Eikelboom J, Guyatt G, Hirsh J. Guidelines for anticoagulant use in acute coronary syndromes. Lancet. 2008; 371:1559–1561.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Stone GW, Ware JH, Bertrand ME, Lincoff AM, Moses JW, Ohman EM, White HD, Feit F, Colombo A, McLaurin BT, Cox DA, Manoukian SV, Fahy M, Clayton TC, Mehran R, Pocock SJ. Antithrombotic strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing early invasive management: one-year results from the ACUITY trial. JAMA. 2007; 298:2497–2506.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ouattara A, Niculescu M, Boccara G, Landi M, Vaissier E, Leger P, Riou B, Gandjbakch I, Coriat P. Identification of risk factors for allogenic transfusion in cardiac surgery from an observational study. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2003; 22:278–283.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Ouattara A, Bouzguenda H, Le Manach Y, Leger P, Mercadier A, Leprince P, Bonnet N, Montalescot G, Riou B, Coriat P. Impact of aspirin with or without clopidogrel on postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion in coronary surgical patients treated prophylactically with a low-dose of aprotinin. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28:1025–1032.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
van der Linden J, Lindvall G, Sartipy U. Aprotinin decreases postoperative bleeding and number of transfusions in patients on clopidogrel undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2005; 112(suppl):I-276–I-280.LinkGoogle Scholar
Lindvall G, Sartipy U, van der Linden J. Aprotinin reduces bleeding and blood product use in patients treated with clopidogrel before coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 80:922–927.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hattler B, Collins JF, McDonald GO, Kozora E, Lucke JC, Baltz JH, Novitzky D. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361:1827–1837.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Marietta M, Facchini L, Pedrazzi P, Busani S, Torelli G. Pathophysiology of bleeding in surgery. Transplant Proc. 2006; 38:812–814.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Mannucci PM, Levi M. Prevention and treatment of major blood loss. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356:2301–2311.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Hein OV, Birnbaum J, Wernecke KD, Konertz W, Jain U, Spies C. Three-year survival after four major post-cardiac operative complications. Crit Care Med. 2006; 34:2729–2737.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Murphy GJ, Reeves BC, Rogers CA, Rizvi SI, Culliford L, Angelini GD. Increased mortality, postoperative morbidity, and cost after red blood cell transfusion in patients having cardiac surgery. Circulation. 2007; 116:2544–2552.LinkGoogle Scholar
Rawn JD. Blood transfusion in cardiac surgery: a silent epidemic revisited. Circulation. 2007; 116:2523–2524.LinkGoogle Scholar
Mehran R, Pocock SJ, Nikolsky E, Clayton T, Dangas GD, Kirtane AJ, Parise H, Fahy M, Manoukian SV, Feit F, Ohman ME, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, Lansky AJ, Stone GW. A risk score to predict bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 55:2556–2566.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, Cannon CP, Emanuelsson H, Held C, Horrow J, Husted S, James S, Katus H, Mahaffey KW, Scirica BM, Skene A, Steg PG, Storey RF, Harrington RA, Freij A, Thorsen M. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361:1045–1057.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar