2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Maternal and Fetal Outcomes in Pulmonary Hypertension During Pregnancy: A Contemporary Nationwide Analysis.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) disproportionately affects women, presenting challenges during pregnancy. Historically, patients with PH are advised to avoid pregnancy; however, recent reports have indicated that the incidence of adverse events in pregnant patients with PH may be lower than previously reported. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in pregnant patients with PH using the National Readmission Database from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. PH was categorized according to the World Health Organization classification. Primary end points include maternal mortality and 30-day nonelective readmission rate. Other adverse short-term maternal (cardiovascular and obstetric) and fetal outcomes were also analyzed. Of 9,922,142 pregnant women, 3,532 (0.04%) had PH, with Group 1 PH noted in 1,833 (51.9%), Group 2 PH in 676 (19.1%), Group 3 PH in 604 (17.1%), Group 4 PH in 23 (0.7%), Group 5 PH in 98 (2.8%), and multifactorial PH in 298 (8.4%). PH patients exhibited higher rates of adverse cardiovascular events (15.7% vs 0.3% without PH, p <0.001) and mortality (0.9% vs 0.01% without PH, p <0.001). Mixed PH and Group 2 PH had the highest prevalence of adverse cardiovascular events in the World Health Organization PH groups. Patients with PH had a significantly higher nonelective 30-day readmission rate (10.4% vs 2.3%) and maternal adverse obstetric events (24.2% vs 9.1%) compared with those without PH (p <0.001) (Figure 1). In conclusion, pregnant women with PH had significantly higher adverse event rates, including in-hospital maternal mortality (85-fold), compared with those without PH.

Venous thromboembolism, chronic liver disease and anticoagulant choice: effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin.

Background: Little to no data exist to guide treatment decision in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and chronic liver disease. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)-individually and as a class-vs warfarin and between 2 DOACs in patients with acute VTE and chronic liver disease. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, US claims-based, propensity score-matched cohort study in adults with acute VTE and chronic liver disease who had newly initiated oral anticoagulants between 2011 and 2017. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization for recurrent VTE and hospitalization for major bleeding. Results: The cohorts included 2361 DOAC-warfarin, 895 apixaban-warfarin, 2161 rivaroxaban-warfarin, and 895 apixaban-rivaroxaban matched pairs. Lower risk of the primary outcome was seen with DOACs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85), apixaban (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35-0.66) or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.88) vs warfarin but not apixaban-rivaroxaban (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43-1.08). The HRs of hospitalization for major bleeding were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57-0.84) for DOAC-warfarin, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.30-0.63) for apixaban-warfarin, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.89) for rivaroxaban-warfarin, and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.35-1.06) for apixaban-rivaroxaban. Recurrent VTE risk was lower with apixaban (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.26-0.86), but not DOACs (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59-1.12) or rivaroxaban vs warfarin (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57-1.14) or apixaban-rivaroxaban (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.42-2.02). Conclusion: While the magnitude of clinical benefit varied across individual DOACs, in adults with acute VTE and chronic liver disease, oral factor Xa inhibitors (as a class or individually) were associated with lower risk of recurrent VTE and major bleeding.

Intravascular Ultrasound Use in Peripheral Arterial and Deep Venous Interventions: Multidisciplinary Expert Opinion From SCAI/AVF/AVLS/SIR/SVM/SVS.

Percutaneous revascularization is the primary strategy for treating lower extremity venous and arterial disease. Angiography is limited by its ability to accurately size vessels, precisely determine the degree of stenosis and length of lesions, characterize lesion morphology, or correctly diagnose postintervention complications. These limitations are overcome with use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). IVUS has demonstrated the ability to improve outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention, and there is increasing evidence to support its benefits in the setting of peripheral vascular intervention. At this stage in its evolution, there remains a need to standardize the use and approach to peripheral vascular IVUS imaging. This manuscript represents considerations and consensus perspectives that emerged from a roundtable discussion including 15 physicians with expertise in interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery, representing 6 cardiovascular specialty societies, held on February 3, 2023. The roundtable's aims were to assess the current state of lower extremity revascularization, identify knowledge gaps and need for evidence, and determine how IVUS can improve care and outcomes for patients with peripheral arterial and deep venous pathology.

An Endovascular- Versus a Surgery-First Revascularization Strategy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Timely revascularization is essential for limb salvage and to reduce mortality in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). In patients who are candidates for endovascular therapy and surgical bypass, the optimal revascularization strategy remains uncertain. Recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have presented conflicting results. We conducted a trial-level meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between endovascular-first and surgery-first strategies for revascularization. PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs comparing the outcomes of endovascular-first versus surgery-first strategies for revascularization in patients with CLTI. Data were pooled for major outcomes and their aggregate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. Kaplan-Meier curves for amputation-free survival and overall survival time were plotted using the pooled aggregated data from published curves, with their corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals reported for up to 5 years of follow-up. A total of 3 RCTs with 2,627 patients (1,312 endovascular-first and 1,315 surgery-first) were included in the meta-analysis. Of these, 1,864 patients (70.9%) were men and 347 (13.2%) were older than 80 years. Comparing the endovascular-first and surgery-first approaches, there was no significant difference in the overall (HR 0.92 [0.83 to 1.01], p = 0.09) or amputation-free survival (HR 0.98 [0.92 to 1.03], p = 0.42), reintervention (RR 1.24 [0.74 to 2.07], p = 0.41), major amputation, (RR 1.16 [0.87 to 1.54], p = 0.31), or therapeutic crossover (RR 0.92 [0.37 to 2.26], p = 0.85). In conclusion, data from available RCTs suggest that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between endovascular-first and surgery-first revascularization strategies for CLTI. A planned patient-level meta-analysis may provide further insight.

Approval, Evidence, and "Off-Label" Device Utilization: The Patent Foramen Ovale Closure Story.

BACKGROUND: Following regulatory approval, medical devices may be used "off-label." Patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure is indicated to reduce recurrent stroke but has been proposed for other indications, including migraine, transient ischemic attack, and diving decompression illness. We sought to evaluate PFO closure rates and indications relative to the timing of regulatory approval and publication of key randomized trials. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse of US commercial insurance enrollees from 2006 to 2019. We quantified PFO closure among individuals with ≥2 years of preprocedure coverage to establish indications, classified hierarchically as stroke/systemic embolism, migraine, transient ischemia attack, or other. RESULTS: We identified 5315 patients undergoing PFO closure (51.8% female, 29.2%≥60 years old), which increased from 4.75 per 100 000 person-years in 2006 to 6.60 per 100 000 person-years in 2019. Patients aged ≥60 years accounted for 29.2% of closures. Procedure volumes corresponded weakly with supportive clinical publications and device approval. Among patients with PFO closure, 58.6% underwent closure for stroke/systemic embolism, 10.2% for transient ischemia attack, 8.8% for migraine, and 22.4% for other indications; 17.6% of patients had atrial fibrillation at baseline; and 11.9% developed atrial fibrillation postprocedure. Those aged ≥60 years and male were less likely to undergo closure for migraine than stroke/systemic embolism. CONCLUSIONS: From 2006 to 2019, PFO closure use was consistently low and corresponded weakly with clinical trial publications and regulatory status. Nearly half of patients underwent PFO closure for indications unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration. Regulators and payers should coordinate mechanisms to promote utilization for approved indications to ensure patient safety and should facilitate clinical trials for other possible indications.

Treatment Variability Among Patients Hospitalized for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: An Analysis of the 2016 to 2018 US National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about treatment variability across US hospitals for patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected from the 2016 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample. All patients aged ≥18 years, admitted to nonfederal US hospitals with a primary diagnosis of CLTI, were identified. Patients were classified according to their clinical presentation (rest pain, skin ulceration, or gangrene) and were further characterized according to the treatment strategy used. The primary outcome of interest was variability in CLTI treatment, as characterized by the median odds ratio. The median odds ratio is defined as the likelihood that 2 similar patients would be treated with a given modality at 1 versus another randomly selected hospital. There were 15 896 (weighted n=79 480) hospitalizations identified where CLTI was the primary diagnosis. Medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, and amputation alone were used in 4057 (25%), 5390 (34%), 3733 (24%), and 2716 (17%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for both patient- and hospital-related factors, the median odds ratio (95% CI) for medical therapy alone, endovascular revascularization ± amputation, surgical revascularization ± amputation, any revascularization, and amputation alone were 1.28 (1.19-1.38), 1.86 (1.77-1.95), 1.65 (1.55-1.74), 1.37 (1.28-1.45), and 1.42 (1.27-1.55), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability in CLTI treatment exists across US hospitals and is not fully explained by patient or hospital characteristics.

In-Hospital Outcomes of Combined Coronary Revascularization and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Inpatient Nationwide Analysis.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is accepted as an alternative to surgery, but data on combined percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and TAVI during the same in-hospital stay are still lacking. Using the national inpatient sample (NIS) database, we identified all TAVI encounters and compared in-hospital outcomes of patients who had TAVI only to patients who had TAVI and PCI. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR). Of 291,810 patient encounters with TAVI, 13,114 (4.5%) had combined PCI during the same index admission. The average age was 79.61 ± 8.61 years in the TAVI-only vs 80.25 ± 8.73 years in the combined TAVI-PCI group. Combined TAVI and PCI was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (4.5% vs 1.8%, aOR: 2.3), stroke (4.7% vs 2.9%, aOR: 1.4), net adverse events (NAE) (20.2% vs 5.7%, aOR: 3.6), major bleeding (40.1% vs 24.3%, aOR: 1.8), vascular complications (10.6% vs 2.5%, aOR: 3.9), acute kidney injury (AKI) (23.3% vs 11.7%, aOR: 2.1), hemodialysis (HD) (4.2% vs 2.4%, aOR: 1.4), postoperative cardiogenic shock (1.2% vs 0.4%, aOR: 2.8), need for mechanical circulatory support (6.9% vs 1%, aOR: 7); p-value < 0.001 for all. The utilization of permanent pacemakers was similar between the groups (9.8% vs 9.2%, aOR: 1; p = 0.6). Combining TAVI and PCI during the same index admission is associated with worse outcomes. The decision to do PCI for patients undergoing TAVI should be individualized and tailored based on the patient's clinical conditions.

Recapturing the Team Approach to Vascular Care.

BACKGROUND: The care of the vascular patient remains decentralized rather than coordinated. METHODS: We reviewed the current state of practice and published competency and care documents created by vascular professional societies. RESULTS: Vascular professional societies routinely and repeatedly endorse both a team approach and the competency of specialists from disparate training backgrounds. The care of the vascular patient does not always reflect these public endorsements. CONCLUSIONS: Centering the vascular patient as the mode of organization of care should improve care processes, expertise brought to bear, and outcomes.

Meta-Analysis Assessing Efficacy and Safety of Vitamin K Antagonists Versus Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) are at a higher risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with AF after TAVI remains unclear. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) versus oral vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in these patients. Electronic databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched till January 31, 2023, for relevant studies evaluating clinical outcomes of VKA versus DOAC in patients with AF after TAVI. Outcomes assessed were (1) all-cause mortality, (2) stroke, (3) major/life-threatening bleeding, and (4) any bleeding. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled in meta-analysis using random effect model. Nine studies (2 randomized and 7 observational) were included in systematic review, and 8 studies with 25,769 patients were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. The mean age of the patients was 82.1 years, and 48.3% were male. Pooled analysis using random-effects model showed no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality (HR 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.10, p = 0.33), stroke (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16, p = 0.70), and major/life-threatening bleeding (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.35, p = 0.70) in patients that received DOAC compared with oral VKA. Risk of any bleeding was lower in the DOAC group compared with oral VKA (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.91, p = 0.0001). In patients with AF, DOACs appear to be a safe alternative oral anticoagulation strategy to oral VKA after TAVI. Further randomized studies are required to confirm the role of DOACs in those patients.

Outcomes of viral myocarditis in patients with and without COVID-19: a nationwide analysis from the United States.

Cardiovascular complications contribute to 40% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related deaths. The viral myocarditis associated with COVID-19 accounts for significant morbidity and mortality. How COVID-19 myocarditis compares to other viral myocardites is unknown. Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample database to identify adult patients hospitalized for viral myocarditis in 2020 and to compare outcomes between those with and without COVID-19. The primary study outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital complications, length of stay, and total costs. Results: The study population included 15 390 patients with viral myocarditis, of whom 5540 (36%) had COVID-19. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, patients with COVID-19 had higher odds of in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.46, 95% CI 2.57-4.67], cardiovascular complications (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.14-1.87) including cardiac arrest (aOR 2.07, 95% CI 1.36-3.14), myocardial infarction (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 2.10-4.20), venous thromboembolism (aOR 2.01, 95% CI 1.25-3.22), neurologic complications (aOR 1.82, 95% CI 1.10-2.84), renal complications (aOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.38-2.13), and hematologic complications (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.10-1.74), but lower odds of acute heart failure (aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44-0.80). The odds of pericarditis, pericardial effusion/tamponade, cardiogenic shock, and the need for vasopressors or mechanical circulatory support were similar. Patients with COVID-19 had longer length of stay (7 days vs. 4 days, P<0.01) and higher total costs ($21,308 vs. $14,089, P<0.01). Conclusions: Among patients with viral myocarditis, COVID-19 is associated with higher in-hospital mortality and cardiovascular, neurologic, renal, and hematologic complications compared to non-COVID-19 viruses.

Long-Term Patient Outcomes After Femoropopliteal Peripheral Vascular Intervention in Patients With Intermittent Claudication.

BACKGROUND: In patients with intermittent claudication (IC), short-term amputation rates from clinical trial data following lower extremity femoropopliteal (FP) peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) are <1% with unknown longer-term rates. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify revascularization and amputation rates following PVI in the FP segment and to assess 4-year amputation and revascularization rates after FP PVI for IC. METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, 19,324 patients undergoing FP PVI for IC were included from the PINC AI Healthcare Database and evaluated by treatment level (superficial femoral artery [SFA], popliteal artery [POP], or both). The primary outcome was index limb amputation (ILA) assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimate. The secondary outcomes were index limb major amputation and repeat revascularization. HRs were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: The 4-year index limb amputation rate following FP PVI was 4.3% (95% CI: 4.0-4.7), with a major amputation rate of 3.2% (95% CI: 2.9-3.5). After POP PVI, ILA was significantly higher than SFA alone (7.5% vs 3.4%) or both segment PVI (5.5%). In multivariate analysis, POP PVI was associated with higher ILA rates at 4 years compared with isolated SFA PVI (HR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.52-2.91) and index limb major amputation (HR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.32-2.95). Repeat FP revascularization rates were 15.2%; they were highest in patients undergoing both SFA and POP PVI (18.7%; P < 0.0001) compared with SFA (13.9%) and POP (17.1%) only. CONCLUSIONS: IC patients undergoing FP PVI had 4-year rates of index limb repeat revascularization of 16.7% and ILA rates of 4.3%. Further risk factors for amputation requires further investigation.

The Cardiovascular Manifestations of COVID-19.

The Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, has resulted in unprecedented morbidity and mortality worldwide. While COVID-19 typically presents as viral pneumonia, cardiovascular manifestations such as acute coronary syndromes, arterial and venous thrombosis, acutely decompensated heart failure (HF), and arrhythmia are frequently observed. Many of these complications are associated with poorer outcomes, including death. Herein we review the relationship between cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes among patients with COVID-19, cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, and cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Chronic Liver Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit-risk profile of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with warfarin, and between DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic liver disease is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a new-user, retrospective cohort study of patients with AF and chronic liver disease who were enrolled in a large, US-based administrative database between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of DOACs (as a class and individually) compared with warfarin, and between DOACs in patients with AF and chronic liver disease. The primary outcomes were hospitalization for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and hospitalization for major bleeding. Inverse probability treatment weights were used to balance the treatment groups on measured confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 10 209 participants were included, with 4421 (43.2%) on warfarin, 2721 (26.7%) apixaban, 2211 (21.7%) rivaroxaban, and 851 (8.3%) dabigatran. The incidence rates per 100 person-years for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism were 2.2, 1.4, 2.6, and 4.4 for DOACs as a class, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin, respectively. The incidence rates per 100 person-years for major bleeding were 7.9, 6.5, 9.1, and 15.0 for DOACs as a class, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin, respectively. After inverse probability treatment weights, the risk of hospitalization for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism was significantly lower between DOACs as a class (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.46-0.90]) or apixaban (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.19-0.82]) compared with warfarin, but not significantly different between rivaroxaban versus warfarin (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.47-1.21]) or rivaroxaban versus apixaban (HR, 1.73 [95% CI, 0.91-3.29]). Compared with warfarin, the risk of hospitalization for major bleeding was lower with DOACs as a class (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.58-0.82]), apixaban (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.46-0.78]), and rivaroxaban (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.62-1.0]). However, the risk of hospitalization for major bleeding was higher for rivaroxaban versus apixaban (HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.18-2.14]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AF and chronic liver disease, DOACs as a class were associated with lower risks of hospitalization for ischemic stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding versus warfarin. However, the incidence of clinical outcomes among patients with AF and chronic liver disease varied between individual DOACs and warfarin, and in head-to-head DOAC comparisons.

PRECISE-DAPT and ARC-HBR Predict in-Hospital Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Bleeding events result in morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are limited data on the predicting bleeding complications in patients who underwent stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) and Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) scores' ability to predict in-hospital outcomes in patients who underwent PCI. Consecutive patients who underwent PCI at tertiary centers from January 2016 to March 2018 were identified and the bleeding risk scores were calculated. The primary end point was the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-defined in-hospital bleeding stratified by low versus high predicted bleeding risk. The major and net adverse cardiovascular events were also examined. The discriminatory ability of the risk models was determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. Among 3,659 patients studied, the in-hospital major bleeding was 3.3% (n = 121). The patients characterized as high bleeding risk by either criterion had significantly higher bleeding rates than those meeting the low-risk criteria (ARC-HBR 5.4% vs 3.3%, p <0.001; PRECISE-DAPT 5.8% vs 2.4%, p <0.001), and higher major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events. These risk estimates showed moderate and similar predictive ability (ARC-HBR high-risk area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.62, PRECISE-DAPT ≥25 AUC 0.61, p = 0.49), with no incremental benefit to adding the estimates (AUC 0.60). The subgroup analysis revealed that women had higher bleeding rates than men (5.53% vs 2.39%, p <0.001); however, the predictive ability of the criteria were similar in women and men. The patients identified as having a high bleeding risk by the PRECISE-DAPT and the ARC-HBR criteria before PCI are at high risk for in-hospital bleeding and adverse outcomes independent of gender. The 2 scores have moderate predictive ability for bleeds. Further study is needed to determine strategies to reduce risk in this population.