Reference: Circulation. 2012; 125:1424–143

Abstract: For many years all efforts applied to the optimization of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were aimed specifically at reducing ischemic events risk through the advent of: 1) new devices (medicated stents), reducing restenosis rates, revascularization and 2) development of new drugs with a potent anti-platelet or anticoagulant such as clopidogrel or, more recently, prasugrel, ticagrelor, 2b3a inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) like bivalirudin among others. However, we have identified that in the mortality equation after PCI, ischemic risk plays an important role. Certainly, the risk of bleeding complications or bleeding itself has been recognized as dominant variables that directly influence the mortality rates of patients who have undergone PCI. Nevertheless, bleeding classification and definition has been very heterogeneous (TIMI, GUSTO, CURE, ACUITY, CURRENT OASIS, STEEPLE, GRACE, REPLACE 2)1, which has negative influences in accurately quantifying its incidence, severity and consequences (mortality). In this regard, the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 1 was recently formed, based on the idea of