Contemporary large-scale data, regarding in-hospital outcomes depending on the types of stent used for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is lacking. We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2006 to 2011 using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure code 36.06 (bare-metal coronary artery stent, BMS) or 36.07 (drug-eluting coronary artery stent, DES) for PCI. All analyses were performed using the designated weighting specified to the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database to minimize bias. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Wald's chi-square test was used for categorical variables. We built a hierarchical 2 level model adjusted for multiple confounding factors, with hospital identification incorporated as random effects in the model and propensity match analyses were used to adjust confounding variables. A total of 665,804 procedures were analyzed, which were representative of 3,277,884 procedures in the United States. Use of bare-metal stents (BMS) was associated with greater occurrence of in-hospital mortality compared with that of drug-eluting stents (DES; 1.4% vs 0.5%, p <0.001). The association stayed significant after adjustment of various possible confounding factors (odds ratio for DES versus BMS 0.59 [0.54 to 0.64, p <0.001]) and also in propensity matched cohorts (1.2% vs 0.7%, p <0.001). The results continued to be similar in the following high-risk subgroups: diabetes (0.57 [0.50 to 0.64, <0.001]), acute myocardial infarction and/or shock (0.53 [0.49 to 0.57, <0.001]), age >80 (0.66 [0.58 to 0.74, <0.001]), and multivessel PCI (0.55 [0.46 to 0.66, <0.001]). In conclusion, DES use was associated with lesser in-hospital mortality compared with BMS. This outcome benefit was seen across subgroups in various subgroups including elderly, diabetics, and acute myocardial infarction as well as multivessel interventions.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
2
6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
2
6%
Chemical Engineering
1
3%
Nursing and Health Professions
1
3%
Other
2
6%
Unknown
5
16%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 03 April 2015.
All research outputs
#5,064,999
of 34,517,289 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiology
#2,694
of 16,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,411
of 275,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiology
#25
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,517,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 275,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
