ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2016
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Relationship Between Procedural Volume and Outcomes.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The relationship between procedural volume and patient outcomes for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.HRB open research · 2021Pooled it
- The effect of milrinone on mortality in adult patients who underwent CABG surgery: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Pooled it
- Hospital volume-outcome relationship in emergency trunk interventional radiology for trauma patients: a nationwide observational study in Japan.European radiology · 2025Observational
- Center Volumes Correlate with Likelihood of Stent Implantation in German Coronary Angiography.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an integral treatment modality for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) as well as chronic stable coronary artery disease (CAD) not responsive to optimal medical therapy. This coupled with studies on the feasibility and safety of performing PCI in centers without on-site surgical backup led to widespread growth of PCI centers. However, this has been accompanied by a recent steep decline in the volume of PCIs at both the operator and hospital level, which raises concerns regarding minimal procedural volumes required to maintain necessary skills and favorable clinical outcomes. The 2011 ACC/AHA/SCAI competency statement required PCI be performed by operators with a minimal procedural volume of >75 PCIs annually at high-volume centers with >400 PCIs per year, a number which was relaxed in the 2013 ACC/AHA/SCAI update to >50 PCIs/operator/year in hospitals with >200 PCIs annually to coincide with reduction in national PCI volume. Recent data suggests that many hospitals do not meet these thresholds. We review data on the importance of volume as a vital quality metric at both an operator and hospital level in determining procedural outcomes following PCI.
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.