Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,011

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Baseline Risk of Major Bleeding in Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) Bleeding Score

Open access
Subherwal, Sumeet, Bach, Richard G., Chen, Anita Y., Gage, Brian F., Rao, Sunil V., Newby, L. Kristin, Wang, Tracy Y., Gibler, W. Brian, Ohman, E. Magnus, Roe, Matthew T., Pollack, Charles V., Peterson, Eric D., Alexander, Karen P.·2009·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Treatments for non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) reduce ischemic events but increase bleeding. Baseline prediction of bleeding risk can complement ischemic risk prediction for optimization of NSTEMI care; however, existing models are not well suited for this purpose. Methods and Results— We developed (n=71 277) and validated (n=17 857) a model that identifies 8 independent baseline predictors of in-hospital major bleeding among community-treated NSTEMI patients enrolled in the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Model performance was tested by c statistics in the derivation and validation cohorts and according to postadmission treatment (ie, invasive and antithrombotic therapy). The CRUSADE bleeding score (range 1 to 100 points) was created by assignment of weighted integers that corresponded to the coefficient of each variable. The rate of major bleeding increased by bleeding risk score quintiles: 3.1% for those at very low risk (score ≤20); 5.5% for those at low risk (score 21–30); 8.6% for those at moderate risk (score 31–40); 11.9% for those at high risk (score 41–50); and 19.5% for those at very high risk (score >50; P trend <0.001). The c statistics for the major bleeding model (derivation=0.72 and validation=0.71) and risk score (derivation=0.71 and validation=0.70) were similar. The c statistics for the model among treatment subgroups were as follows: ≥2 antithrombotics=0.72; <2 antithrombotics=0.73; invasive approach=0.73; conservative approach=0.68. Conclusions— The CRUSADE bleeding score quantifies risk for in-hospital major bleeding across all postadmission treatments, which enhances baseline risk assessment for NSTEMI care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.108.828541

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,011

Metadata

Authors
Subherwal, S., Bach, R. G., Chen, A. Y., Gage, B. F., Rao, S. V., Newby, L. K., Wang, T. Y., Gibler, W. B., Ohman, E. M., Roe, M. T., Pollack, C. V., Peterson, E. D., & Alexander, K. P.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2009-04-14
Volume
119
Issue
14
Pages
1873-1882
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2069255298
Cited by
1,011
References
2
FWCI
35.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Baseline Risk of Major Bleeding in Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) Bleeding Score. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.108.828541
The paper
Subherwal, S., Bach, R. G., Chen, A. Y., Gage, B. F., Rao, S. V., Newby, L. K., Wang, T. Y., Gibler, W. B., Ohman, E. M., Roe, M. T., Pollack, C. V., Peterson, E. D., & Alexander, K. P. (2009). Baseline Risk of Major Bleeding in Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) Bleeding Score. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.108.828541

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.