Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 457

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contemporary Mortality Risk Prediction for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Open access
Peterson, Eric D., Dai, David, DeLong, Elizabeth R., Brennan, J. Matthew, Singh, Mandeep, Rao, Sunil V., Shaw, Richard E., Roe, Matthew T., Ho, Kalon K.L., Klein, Lloyd W., Krone, Ronald J., Weintraub, William S., Brindis, Ralph G., Rumsfeld, John S., Spertus, John A.·2010·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Objective We sought to create contemporary models for predicting mortality risk following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background There is a need to identify PCI risk factors and accurately quantify procedural risks to facilitate comparative effectiveness research, provider comparisons, and informed patient decision making. Methods Data from 181,775 procedures performed from January 2004 to March 2006 were used to develop risk models based on pre-procedural and/or angiographic factors using logistic regression. These models were independently evaluated in two validation cohorts: contemporary (n=121,183, January 2004 to March 2006) and prospective (n=285,440, March 2006 to March 2007). Results Overall, PCI in-hospital mortality was 1.27%, ranging from 0.65% in elective PCI to 4.81% in STEMI patients. Multiple pre-procedural clinical factors were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. Angiographic variables provided only modest incremental information to pre-procedural risk assessments. The overall NCDR model, as well as a simplified NCDR risk score (based on 8 key pre-procedure factors), had excellent discrimination (c-index 0.93 and 0.91, respectively). Discrimination and calibration of both risk tools were retained among specific patient subgroups, in the validation samples, and when used to estimate 30-day mortality rates among Medicare patients. Conclusions Risks for early mortality following PCI can be accurately predicted in contemporary practice. Incorporation of such risk tools should facilitate research, clinical, and policy applications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.005

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 26 references

Cited by

See all 457

Metadata

Authors
Peterson, E. D., Dai, D., DeLong, E. R., Brennan, J. M., Singh, M., Rao, S. V., Shaw, R. E., Roe, M. T., Ho, K. K. L., Klein, L. W., Krone, R. J., Weintraub, W. S., Brindis, R. G., Rumsfeld, J. S., & Spertus, J. A.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-05
Volume
55
Issue
18
Pages
1923-1932
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1934667690
Cited by
457
References
26
FWCI
46.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contemporary Mortality Risk Prediction for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.005
The paper
Peterson, E. D., Dai, D., DeLong, E. R., Brennan, J. M., Singh, M., Rao, S. V., Shaw, R. E., Roe, M. T., Ho, K. K. L., Klein, L. W., Krone, R. J., Weintraub, W. S., Brindis, R. G., Rumsfeld, J. S., & Spertus, J. A. (2010). Contemporary Mortality Risk Prediction for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.02.005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.