ArticleJACC. Case reports2025
Neighborhood Distress and PCI Outcomes: A Single-Center Study.
Article in JACC. Case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable risk adjustment underpins fair percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) benchmarking. Whether adding neighborhood socioeconomic distress enhances in-hospital mortality prediction is uncertain. PROJECT RATIONALE: To evaluate if the Distressed Communities Index (DCI) adds discrimination beyond a validated clinical model (predicted risk of mortality [PROM]). PROJECT SUMMARY: We analyzed 1,551 PCI admissions (CathPCI Registry, Barnes Jewish Hospital) using 3 prediction models: PROM alone, DCI alone, and PROM + DCI. Discrimination was measured by area under the curve (AUC; Delong test); DCI association was assessed by nonparametric tests. In-hospital mortality occurred in 54 patients (3.5%). PROM showed excellent discrimination (AUC: 0.93); DCI alone performed poorly (AUC: 0.61); PROM + DCI showed lower discrimination than PROM alone (AUC: 0.88). Higher DCI was associated with race (P < 0.001), sex (P = 0.009), insurance type (P < 0.001), PCI indication (P < 0.001), cardiogenic shock (P = 0.0004), and in-hospital mortality (P = 0.011), but not with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Adding DCI did not improve prediction beyond PROM; DCI may be better for equity-oriented population targeting than individual risk adjustment.
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.