Comparative validation of three contemporary bleeding risk scores in acute coronary syndromes

Background: Hemorrhagic complications are strongly linked with subsequent adverse outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Various risk scores (RS) are available to estimate the bleeding risk in these patients. Aims: To compare the predictive accuracy of the three contemporary bleeding RS in ACS. Methods: We studied 4500 consecutive patients with ACS. For each patient, the ACTION, CRUSADE, and Mehran et al bleeding RS were calculated. We assessed their performance either for the prediction of their own major bleeding events or to predict the TIMI serious (major and minor) bleeding episodes in the overall population, in patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS) and in those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) and discrimination (c-statistic) for the three RS were computed and compared. We used the concept of net reclassification improvement (NRI) to compare the incremental prognostic value of using a particular RS over the remaining scores in predicting the TIMI serious bleeding. Results: The best predictive accuracy was obtained by the CRUSADE score either for the prediction of its own major bleeding events (c-statistic=0.80, 0.791, and 0.81 for the entire sample, for STEMI, and for NSTEACS patients, respectively) or to predict the TIMI serious bleed occurrence (c-statistic=0.741, 0.738,and 0.745 for the whole population, for STEMI and NSTEACS patients, respectively). The lowest bleeding rates observed in patients classified as low risk corresponded to the CRUSADE RS. All scores performed modestly in patients who did not undergo coronariography (all c-statistic <0.70). The CRUSADE score was significantly superior to the ACTION model in predicting the TIMI serious bleeding occurrence in terms of NRI overall and by ACS subgroups (p<0.05). Overall, the CRUSADE RS exhibited better calibration for predicting the TIMI serious bleeding compared to the ACTION and Mehran et al scores (Hosmer-Lemeshow p-values of 0.26, 0.13, and 0.07, respectively). Conclusion: The CRUSADE score represents, among the more contemporary bleeding RS, the most accurate and reliable quantitative clinical tool in STEACS and STEMI patients. We encourage the utilization of the CRUSADE index for bleeding risk stratification purposes in daily clinical practice and in ACS outcome studies. The performance of the three more contemporary bleeding RS is modest in those patients who received conservative management

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective