↓ Skip to main content

Relationship Between Operator Volume and Long-Term Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
31 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Relationship Between Operator Volume and Long-Term Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Published in
Circulation, September 2018
DOI 10.1161/circulationaha.117.033325
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Although many studies show an inverse association between operator procedural volume and short-term adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the association between procedural volume and longer term outcomes is unknown. Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI registry data linked with Medicare claims data, we examined the association between operator PCI volume and long-term outcomes among patients aged ≥ 65 years. Operators were stratified by average annual PCI volume (counting PCIs performed in patients of all ages): low- (< 50 PCIs), intermediate- (50-100), and high-volume operators (> 100). One-year unadjusted rates of death and major adverse coronary events (MACE, defined as death, readmission for myocardial infarction [MI], or unplanned coronary revascularization) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. The proportional hazards assumption was not met and risk-adjusted associations between operator volume and outcomes were calculated separately from the time of PCI to hospital discharge and from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up. Between July 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014, 723,644 PCI procedures were performed by 8,936 operators: 2,553 high-, 2,878 intermediate-, and 3,505 low-volume. Compared with high- and intermediate-volume operators, low-volume operators more often performed emergency PCI and their patients had fewer cardiovascular comorbidities. Over 1 year follow-up, 15.9% of patients treated by low-volume operators had a MACE event compared with 16.9% of patients treated by high-volume operators ( p = 0.004). After multivariable adjustment, intermediate- and high-volume operators had a significantly lower rate of in-hospital death than low-volume operators (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.96 for intermediate vs. low; OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.75-0.83 for high vs. low). There were no significant differences in rates of MACE, death, MI, or unplanned revascularization between operator cohorts from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up (adjusted HR for MACE: 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.01 for intermediate vs. low; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.04 for high versus low). Unadjusted 1-year outcomes following PCI were worse for older adults treated by operators with higher annual volume; however, patients treated by these operators had more cardiovascular comorbidities. After risk adjustment, higher operator volume was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and no difference in post-discharge MACE.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Psychology 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 21 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 16 May 2024.
All research outputs
#1,603,940
of 28,010,730 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#4,191
of 25,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,009
of 352,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#79
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,010,730 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 352,731 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 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 58% of its contemporaries.