Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30782913›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Temporal trends in relative survival following percutaneous coronary intervention.

William J Hulme, Matthew Sperrin, Glen Philip Martin, Nick Curzen, Peter Ludman, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Mamas A Mamas, British Cardiovascular Intervention Society and the National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes Research

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Temporal trends in clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review of 66,327 patients from 25 all-comers trials.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

William J HulmeFarr Institute, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9162-4999
Matthew SperrinFarr Institute, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Glen Philip MartinFarr Institute, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3410-9472
Nick CurzenUniversity Hospital Southampton and Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Peter LudmanDepartment of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
Evangelos KontopantelisFarr Institute, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6450-5815
Mamas A MamasKeele Cardiovascular Research Group, Centre for Prognosis Research, Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, University of Keele, Keele, UK.
British Cardiovascular Intervention Society and the National Institute of Cardiovascular Outcomes Research
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBRoyal Stoke University Hospital · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has seen substantial shifts in patient selection in recent years that have increased baseline patient mortality risk. It is unclear to what extent observed changes in mortality are attributable to background mortality risk or the indication and selection for PCI itself. PCI-attributable mortality can be estimated using relative survival, which adjusts observed mortality by that seen in a matched control population. We report relative survival ratios and compare these across different time periods.

methodsNational Health Service PCI activity in England and Wales from 2007 to 2014 is considered using data from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society PCI Registry. Background mortality is as reported in Office for National Statistics life tables. Relative survival ratios up to 1 year are estimated, matching on patient age, sex and procedure date. Estimates are stratified by indication for PCI, sex and procedure date.

results549 305 procedures were studied after exclusions for missing age, sex, indication and mortality status. Comparing from 2007 to 2008 to 2013-2014, differences in crude survival at 1 year were consistently lower in later years across all strata. For relative survival, these differences remained but were smaller, suggesting poorer survival in later years is partly due to demographic characteristics. Relative survival was higher in older patients.

conclusionsChanges in patient demographics account for some but not all of the crude survival changes seen during the study period. Relative survival is an under-used methodology in interventional settings like PCI and should be considered wherever survival is compared between populations with different demographic characteristics, such as between countries or time periods.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionCoronary Artery DiseaseEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMortalityPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRegistriesSex DistributionState Medicinecoronary interventionquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID30782913
PMCPMC6398900
OpenAlexW2911380096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.