↓ Skip to main content

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Cardiology, March 2016
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease
Published in
American Journal of Cardiology, March 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.03.010
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The objective of our study was to assess patients with end-stage liver disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and determine the rates and trend of complications and in-hospital outcomes. Data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2005 to 2012. We identified all PCIs performed in patients with diagnosis of cirrhosis during the study period by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Preventable procedural complications were identified by Patient Safety Indicators. Propensity scoring method was used to establish matched cohorts to control for imbalances and account for differences that may have influenced treatment outcomes. A total of 1,051,242 PCIs were performed during the study period, of these, 122,342 were done on subjects with a formal diagnosis of cirrhosis. Bare-metal stents (BMS) were more likely to be used in patients who presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (19.73 vs 13.58, p <0.001), in cardiogenic shock (5.58, vs 2.81, p <0.001), or required intraaortic balloon pump (4.73 vs 2.38, p <0.001). The overall rate of complications was 7.1%, whereas the overall mortality rate over these years was 3.63%. On a propensity-matched analysis the mortality rate was 2 times higher for BMS (5.18 vs 2.35, p <0.001) compared with drug-eluting stents. PCI remains a safe and plausible option for patients with cirrhosis albeit riskier than for the general population. The use of BMS is associated with increased mortality and bleeding complications compared with drug-eluting stents which likely is representative of preferential use of BMS in patients with more advanced end-stage liver disease who are also likely to experience higher postprocedural complications.

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 3 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 43 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 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Student > Master 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 19 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Engineering 1 2%
Unknown 21 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 February 2020.
All research outputs
#4,575,731
of 34,575,175 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiology
#2,402
of 16,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,887
of 338,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiology
#27
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,575,175 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,022 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 84% 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 338,857 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 107 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 74% of its contemporaries.