Our primary objective was to study postprocedural outcomes and hospitalization costs after peripheral endovascular interventions and the multivariate predictors affecting the outcomes with emphasis on hospital volume. The study cohort was derived from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (2006 to 2011). Peripheral endovascular interventions were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnostic and procedural codes. Annual institutional volumes were calculated using unique identification numbers and then divided into quartiles. Two-level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The primary outcome was inhospital mortality; secondary outcome was a composite of inhospital mortality and postprocedural complications. Amputation rates and hospitalization costs were also assessed. Multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, p value) revealed age (1.46, 1.37 to 1.55, p <0.001), female gender (1.28, 1.12 to 1.46, p <0.001), baseline co-morbidity status as depicted by a greater Charlson co-morbidity index score (≥2: 4.32, 3.45 to 5.40, p <0.001), emergent or urgent admissions(2.48, 2.14 to 2.88, p <0.001), and weekend admissions (1.53, 1.26 to 1.86, p <0.001) to be significant predictors of primary outcome. An increasing hospital volume quartile was independently predictive of improved primary (0.65, 0.52 to 0.82, p <0.001 for the fourth quartile) and secondary (0.85, 0.73 to 0.97, 0.02 for the fourth quartile) outcomes and lower amputation rates (0.52, 0.45 to 0.61, p <0.001). A significant reduction hospitalization costs ($-3,889, -5,318 to -2,459, p <0.001) was also seen in high volume centers. In conclusion, a greater hospital procedural volume is associated with superior outcomes after peripheral endovascular interventions in terms of inhospital mortality, complications, and hospitalization costs.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
1
2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
1
2%
Other
1
2%
Unknown
20
35%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,819,500
of 34,545,128 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiology
#4,018
of 16,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,020
of 308,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiology
#28
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,545,128 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,019 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 308,256 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
