↓ Skip to main content

Editor’s Choice - Impact of initial hospital diagnosis on mortality for acute myocardial infarction: A national cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 947)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
51 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
29 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Editor’s Choice - Impact of initial hospital diagnosis on mortality for acute myocardial infarction: A national cohort study
Published in
European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1177/2048872616661693
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianhua Wu, Chris P Gale, Marlous Hall, Tatendashe B Dondo, Elizabeth Metcalfe, Ged Oliver, Phil D Batin, Harry Hemingway, Adam Timmis, Robert M West

Abstract

Early and accurate diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction is central to successful treatment and improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate the impact of the initial hospital diagnosis on mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Cohort study using data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project of patients discharged with a final diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI, n=221,635) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI, n=342,777) between 1 April 2004 and 31 March 2013 in all acute hospitals (n = 243) in England and Wales. Overall, 168,534 (29.9%) patients had an initial diagnosis which was not the same as their final diagnosis. After multivariable adjustment, for STEMI a change from an initial diagnosis of NSTEMI (time ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.01) and chest pain of uncertain cause (0.98, 0.89-1.07) was not associated with a significant reduction in time to death, whereas for other initial diagnoses the time to death was significantly reduced by 21% (0.78, 0.74-0.83). For NSTEMI, after multivariable adjustment, a change from an initial diagnosis of STEMI was associated with a reduction in time to death of 10% (time ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.83-0.97), but not for chest pain of uncertain cause (0.99, 0.96-1.02). Patients with NSTEMI who had other initial diagnoses had a significant 14% reduction in their time to death (time ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.84-0.88). STEMI and NSTEMI with other initial diagnoses had low rates of pre-hospital electrocardiograph (24.3% and 21.5%), aspirin on hospitalisation (61.6% and 48.5%), care by a cardiologist (60.0% and 51.5%), invasive coronary procedures (38.8 % and 29.2%), cardiac rehabilitation (68.9% and 62.6%) and guideline indicated medications at time of discharge from hospital. Had the 3.3% of patients with STEMI and 17.9% of NSTEMI who were admitted with other initial diagnoses received an initial diagnosis of STEMI and NSTEMI, then 33 and 218 deaths per year might have been prevented, respectively. Nearly one in three patients with acute myocardial infarction had other diagnoses at first medical contact, who less frequently received guideline indicated care and had significantly higher mortality rates. There is substantial potential, greater for NSTEMI than STEMI, to improve outcomes through earlier and more accurate diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Other 11 9%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 36 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 44 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 444. 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 30 January 2024.
All research outputs
#67,267
of 26,540,415 outputs
Outputs from European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care
#2
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,433
of 352,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care
#1
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,540,415 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 352,839 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.