ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Comparing Outcomes Between Advanced Practice Providers and Housestaff Teams in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of surgical assistance by Japanese nurse practitioners in robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Observational
- Two Sides of the Same Coin: Evolving Staffing Models in Cardiac Intensive Care Units.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With an increasing demand for critical care expertise and limitations in intensivist availability, innovative staffing models, such as the utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs), have emerged. Objectives: The purpose of the study was to compare patient outcomes between APP and housestaff teams in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Methods: This retrospective study, spanning March 2022 to July 2023, compares patient characteristics and outcomes between two CICU teams embedded in the same CICU at a large urban academic hospital: one staffed by housestaff and the other by APPs (80% physician assistants, 20% nurse practitioners) who each had approximately 1 to 2 years of experience in the CICU. The primary outcome was CICU mortality. Multivariable Cox regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess the primary outcome. Results: A total of 1,620 admissions were analyzed: 1,013 patients on the housestaff service and 607 patients on the APP service. There were no significant differences in patient demographics, admitting diagnoses, use of vasoactive medications, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support. There was no difference in CICU mortality (8.4% vs 8.2%, adjusted hazard ratio 0.73; 95% CI: 0.51-1.05; Conclusions: Our moderately sized study demonstrated no difference in CICU or in-hospital mortality between patients managed by a housestaff team versus those managed by an APP team.
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.