| Title |
Appropriateness and Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention at Top-Ranked and Nonranked Hospitals in the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.10.042 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Devraj Sukul, Deepak L. Bhatt, Milan Seth, Pearl Zakroysky, Daniel Wojdyla, John S. Rumsfeld, Tracy Wang, Sunil V. Rao, Hitinder S. Gurm |
| Abstract |
This study sought to compare the appropriate use and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between top-ranked and nonranked hospitals. The U.S. News & World Report "Best Hospitals" rankings are an influential consumer-directed publication of hospital quality, and are commonly used in promotional campaigns by hospital systems. Hospitals in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015, were classified as top-ranked if they were included in the 2015 U.S. News & World Report 50 best "Cardiology and Heart Surgery" hospitals. The remaining were classified as nonranked. We compared in-hospital mortality, post-procedural bleeding, post-procedural acute kidney injury, and the proportion of appropriate PCI procedures between top-ranked and nonranked hospitals. A total of 509,153 PCIs at 654 hospitals were included, of which 55,550 (10.9%) were performed at 44 top-ranked hospitals. After adjusting for patient case mix, PCIs performed at top-ranked hospitals had similar odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.12; p = 0.64), acute kidney injury (aOR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.22; p = 0.099), and bleeding (aOR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.31; p = 0.052). Top-ranked hospitals had a slightly lower proportion of appropriate PCI compared with nonranked hospitals (89.2% vs. 92.8%; OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.69; p < 0.001). PCI performed at top-ranked hospitals was not associated with superior outcomes compared with PCI at nonranked hospitals. The inclusion of metrics based on clinical data may be important for hospital quality rankings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 35 | 43% |
| Spain | 5 | 6% |
| India | 3 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Trinidad and Tobago | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Argentina | 1 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 43 | 53% |
| Scientists | 20 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 63. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2018.
All research outputs
#679,589
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#166
of 4,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,102
of 337,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#3
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.