↓ Skip to main content

Predicting cardiovascular intensive care unit readmission after cardiac surgery: derivation and validation of the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH…

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predicting cardiovascular intensive care unit readmission after cardiac surgery: derivation and validation of the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) cardiovascular intensive care unit clinical prediction model from a registry cohort of 10,799 surgical cases
Published in
Critical Care, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0651-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean van Diepen, Michelle M Graham, Jayan Nagendran, Colleen M Norris

Abstract

IntroductionIn medical and surgical intensive care units, clinical risk prediction models for readmission have been developed; however studies reporting the risks for cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) readmission have been methodologically limited by small numbers of outcomes, unreported measures of calibration or discrimination, or a lack of information spanning the entire perioperative period. The purpose of this study was to derive and validate a clinical prediction model for CVICU readmission in cardiac surgical patients.MethodsA total of 10,799 patients more than or equal to 18 years in the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) registry who underwent cardiac surgery (coronary artery bypass or valvular surgery) between 2004 and 2012 and were discharged alive from the first CVICU admission were included. The full cohort was used to derive the clinical prediction model and the model was internally validated with bootstrapping. Discrimination and calibration were assessed using the AUC c-index and the Hosmer-Lemeshow tests, respectively.ResultsA total of 479 (4.4%) patients required CVICU readmission. The mean CVICU length of stay (19.9 versus 3.3 days, P <0.001) and in-hospital mortality (14.4 % versus 2.2%, P <0.001) were higher among patients readmitted to the CVICU. In the derivation cohort, a total of three preoperative (Age ¿70, ejection fraction, chronic lung disease), two intraoperative (Single valve repair or replacement¿+¿non-CABG surgery, multivalve repair or replacement), and seven postoperative variables (cardiac arrest, pneumonia, pleural effusion, deep sternal wound infection, leg graft harvest site infection, gastrointestinal bleed, neurologic complications) were independently associated with CVICU readmission. The clinical prediction model had robust discrimination and calibration in the derivation cohort (AUC c index =0.799; Hosmer-Lemeshow P =0.192). The validation point estimates and confidence intervals were similar to derivation model.ConclusionIn a large population based dataset incorporating a comprehensive set of perioperative variables, we have derived a clinical prediction model with excellent discrimination and calibration. This model identifies opportunities for targeted therapeutic interventions aimed at reducing CVICU readmissions in high risk patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 91 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 19%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Engineering 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2014.
All research outputs
#6,753,656
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,793
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,236
of 369,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#85
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.