Determining the In‐Hospital Cost of Bleeding in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The economic impact of bleeding in the setting of nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is poorly understood and complicated by the variety of bleeding definitions currently employed. This retrospective analysis examines and contrasts the in-hospital cost of bleeding associated with this procedure using six bleeding definitions employed in recent clinical trials. METHODS: All nonemergent PCI cases at Christiana Care Health System not requiring a subsequent coronary artery bypass were identified between January 2003 and March 2006. Bleeding events were identified by chart review, registry, laboratory, and administrative data. A microcosting strategy was applied utilizing hospital charges converted to costs using departmental level direct cost-to-charge ratios. The independent contributions of bleeding, both major and minor, to cost were determined by multiple regression. Bootstrap methods were employed to obtain estimates of regression parameters and their standard errors. RESULTS: A total of 6,008 cases were evaluated. By GUSTO definitions there were 65 (1.1%) severe, 52 (0.9%) moderate, and 321 (5.3%) mild bleeding episodes with estimated bleeding costs of $14,006; $6,980; and $4,037, respectively. When applying TIMI definitions there were 91 (1.5%) major and 178 (3.0%) minor bleeding episodes with estimated costs of $8,794 and $4,310, respectively. In general, the four additional trial-specific definitions identified more bleeding events, provided lower estimates of major bleeding cost, and similar estimates of minor bleeding costs. CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding is associated with considerable cost over and above interventional procedures; however, the choice of bleeding definition impacts significantly on both the incidence and economic consequences of these events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".