ArticleAmerican heart journal2012
Indications for percutaneous coronary interventions performed in US hospitals: a report from the NCDR®.
Article in American heart journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Coronary revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease and diabetes mellitus.Diabetes & vascular disease researchPooled it
- Development of an approach to extracting coronary arteries and detecting stenosis in invasive coronary angiograms.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2022Article
- Regional variations in the process of care for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in Japan.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2022Article
- A fitting machine learning prediction model for short-term mortality following percutaneous catheterization intervention: a nationwide population-based study.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Defending waste, fraud, and abuse.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are many factors hypothesized as contributing to overuse of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States, including financial ties between physicians and hospitals, but empirical data are lacking. We examined PCI indications in not-for-profit (NFP), major teaching, for-profit (FP), and physician-owned specialty hospitals.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of 1,113,554 patients who underwent PCI in 694 hospitals (NFP 471, teaching 131, FP 79, specialty 13) participating in the CathPCI Registry® between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2007. Percutaneous coronary intervention indications derived from American College of Cardiology Guidelines were classified as survival benefit (patients with primary reperfusion for ST-elevation myocardial infarction), potential quality of life benefit (patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), positive stress test, or chest pain), or unclear indications (patients receiving PCI without an obvious potential survival or quality of life benefit).
resultsThe percentage of PCI performed for unclear indications was somewhat higher for specialty hospitals (5.1% of all procedures) as compared with other hospital categories (FP 4.7%, NFP 4.2%, major teaching 4.5%; P < .001). Overall, 17% of hospitals had ≥20% of their total PCI procedures performed for unclear indications, but the proportion of FP, NFP, major teaching, and specialty hospitals reaching this threshold was not statistically different (20%, 16%, 17%, and 15%, respectively; P = .84).
conclusionsA small proportion of PCI procedures were performed in patients with unclear indications, but there was wide variation across hospitals. On average, specialty hospitals performed more PCIs for unclear indications. Efforts to reduce variability should be pursued.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.