World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Mitchell W. Krucoff

Mitchell W. Krucoff

D-Index & Metrics

Medicine

D-Index
88
Citations
54061
World Ranking
12890
National Ranking
6591

Mitchell W. Krucoff publication distribution in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Medicine in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Mitchell W. Krucoff sits on this spectrum.

101–120 publications: 5 scientists 121–140 publications: 26 scientists 141–160 publications: 73 scientists 161–180 publications: 155 scientists 181–200 publications: 230 scientists 201–220 publications: 363 scientists 221–240 publications: 487 scientists 241–260 publications: 545 scientists 261–280 publications: 722 scientists 281–300 publications: 768 scientists 301–320 publications: 834 scientists 321–340 publications: 895 scientists 341–360 publications: 922 scientists 361–380 publications: 838 scientists 381–400 publications: 861 scientists 401–420 publications: 918 scientists 421–440 publications: 806 scientists 441–460 publications: 771 scientists 461–480 publications: 751 scientists 481–500 publications: 713 scientists 501–520 publications: 617 scientists 521–540 publications: 611 scientists 541–560 publications: 537 scientists 561–580 publications: 504 scientists 581–600 publications: 509 scientists 601–620 publications: 396 scientists 621–640 publications: 386 scientists 641–660 publications: 371 scientists 661–680 publications: 340 scientists 681–700 publications: 336 scientists 701–720 publications: 307 scientists 721–740 publications: 259 scientists 741–760 publications: 230 scientists 761–780 publications: 228 scientists 781–800 publications: 217 scientists 801–820 publications: 204 scientists 821–840 publications: 186 scientists 841–860 publications: 177 scientists 861–880 publications: 155 scientists 881–900 publications: 139 scientists 901–920 publications: 145 scientists 921–940 publications: 116 scientists 941–960 publications: 133 scientists 961–980 publications: 91 scientists 981–1,000 publications: 96 scientists 1,001–1,020 publications: 77 scientists 1,021–1,040 publications: 70 scientists 1,041–1,060 publications: 63 scientists 1,061–1,080 publications: 77 scientists 1,081–1,100 publications: 49 scientists 1,101–1,120 publications: 54 scientists 1,121–1,140 publications: 49 scientists 1,141–1,160 publications: 51 scientists 1,161–1,180 publications: 35 scientists 1,181–1,200 publications: 39 scientists 1,201–1,220 publications: 26 scientists 1,221–1,240 publications: 37 scientists 1,241–1,260 publications: 36 scientists 1,261–1,280 publications: 27 scientists 1,281–1,300 publications: 32 scientists 1,301–1,320 publications: 28 scientists 1,321–1,340 publications: 17 scientists 1,341–1,360 publications: 30 scientists 1,361–1,380 publications: 28 scientists 1,381–1,400 publications: 17 scientists 1,401–1,420 publications: 21 scientists 1,421–1,440 publications: 15 scientists 1,441–1,460 publications: 12 scientists 1,461–1,480 publications: 12 scientists 1,481–1,500 publications: 18 scientists 1,501–1,520 publications: 14 scientists 1,521–1,540 publications: 17 scientists 1,541–1,560 publications: 15 scientists 1,561–1,580 publications: 6 scientists 1,581–1,600 publications: 2 scientists 1,601–1,620 publications: 12 scientists 1,621–1,640 publications: 11 scientists 1,641–1,660 publications: 8 scientists 1,661–1,680 publications: 5 scientists 1,681–1,700 publications: 5 scientists 1,701–1,720 publications: 10 scientists 1,721–1,740 publications: 12 scientists 1,741–1,760 publications: 14 scientists 1,761–1,780 publications: 6 scientists 1,781–1,795 publications: 5 scientists 1,796+ publications: 100 scientists
101 publications 1,796+

This scientist: 497 publications — 57th percentile

57% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,796 publications or more.

Mitchell W. Krucoff D-index placement in Medicine in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Medicine scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Mitchell W. Krucoff sits on this spectrum.

70–71 D-Index: 226 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 391 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 574 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 730 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 891 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 972 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 1,027 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 1,003 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 960 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 970 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 922 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 839 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 808 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 779 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 668 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 611 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 630 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 513 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 541 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 445 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 429 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 400 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 393 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 318 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 302 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 287 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 255 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 256 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 252 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 230 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 179 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 168 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 163 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 159 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 134 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 134 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 118 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 109 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 106 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 74 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 79 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 80 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 87 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 57 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 74 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 69 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 60 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 53 scientists 166–167 D-Index: 39 scientists 168–169 D-Index: 42 scientists 170–171 D-Index: 32 scientists 172–173 D-Index: 39 scientists 174–175 D-Index: 40 scientists 176–177 D-Index: 28 scientists 178–179 D-Index: 19 scientists 180–181 D-Index: 23 scientists 182–183 D-Index: 31 scientists 184–185 D-Index: 18 scientists 186–187 D-Index: 20 scientists 188–189 D-Index: 22 scientists 190–191 D-Index: 13 scientists 192–193 D-Index: 21 scientists 194–195 D-Index: 12 scientists 196–197 D-Index: 12 scientists 198–199 D-Index: 14 scientists 200–201 D-Index: 15 scientists 202–203 D-Index: 13 scientists 204–205 D-Index: 10 scientists 206–207 D-Index: 8 scientists 208–209 D-Index: 4 scientists 210–211 D-Index: 12 scientists 212–213 D-Index: 11 scientists 214–215 D-Index: 10 scientists 216 D-Index: 4 scientists 217+ D-Index: 98 scientists
70 D-Index 217+

This scientist: 88 D-Index — 36th percentile

36% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 217 D-Index or more.

Overview

Mitchell W. Krucoff is affiliated with Duke University in the United States and specializes primarily in the field of medicine, with a particular focus on cardiology and cardiovascular medicine. Their research encompasses several subfields including surgery, pulmonary and respiratory medicine, economics and econometrics, as well as radiology, nuclear medicine, and imaging.

The main topics within their research include:

  • Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
  • Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
  • Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
  • Peripheral Artery Disease Management
  • Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Mitchell W. Krucoff has contributed to numerous publications primarily in cardiovascular research. Frequent publication venues include:

  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (22 publications)
  • JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions (14 publications)
  • EuroIntervention (10 publications)
  • American Heart Journal (10 publications)
  • European Heart Journal (7 publications)

Their recent influential papers are:

  • Definitions and Clinical Trial Design Principles for Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion Therapies: CTO-ARC Consensus Recommendations, 2021, Circulation
  • Validation of the Academic Research Consortium High Bleeding Risk Definition in Contemporary PCI Patients, 2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology
  • Ticagrelor alone vs. ticagrelor plus aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: TWILIGHT-ACS, 2020, European Heart Journal
  • Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium, 2023, Circulation
  • Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC), 2023, Circulation

Krucoff frequently collaborates with several other researchers, including:

  • Roxana Mehran (57 co-authored works)
  • Dominick J. Angiolillo (51 co-authored works)
  • Samantha Sartori (35 co-authored works)
  • Davide Cao (32 co-authored works)
  • George Dangas (31 co-authored works)

Best Publications

  • Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials A Case for Standardized Definitions

    Donald E. Cutlip;Stephan Windecker;Roxana Mehran;Ashley Boam

  • Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document.

    A. Pieter Kappetein;Stuart J. Head;Philippe Généreux;Nicolo Piazza

  • Standardized Bleeding Definitions for Cardiovascular Clinical Trials A Consensus Report From the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium

    Roxana Mehran;Sunil V. Rao;Deepak L. Bhatt;C. Michael Gibson

  • Updated Standardized Endpoint Definitions for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

    A. Pieter Kappetein;Stuart J. Head;Philippe Généreux;Nicolo Piazza

  • Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents.

    Laura Mauri;Dean J. Kereiakes;Robert W. Yeh;Priscilla Driscoll-Shempp

  • Standardized Endpoint Definitions for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Clinical Trials : A Consensus Report From the Valve Academic Research Consortium

    Martin B Leon;Nicolo Piazza;Eugenia Nikolsky;Eugene H. Blackstone

  • Outcomes of Anatomical versus Functional Testing for Coronary Artery Disease

    Pamela S. Douglas;Udo Hoffmann;Manesh R. Patel;Daniel B. Mark

  • Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk

    Philip Urban;Roxana Mehran;Roisin Colleran;Dominick J. Angiolillo

  • Standardized Endpoint Definitions for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Clinical Trials

    Martin B. Leon;Nicolo Piazza;Eugenia Nikolsky;Eugene H. Blackstone

  • Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients after PCI

    Roxana Mehran;Usman Baber;Samin K Sharma;David J Cohen

  • Practice Standards for Electrocardiographic Monitoring in Hospital Settings An American Heart Association Scientific Statement From the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Clinical Cardiology, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young

    Barbara J. Drew;Robert M. Califf;Marjorie Funk;Elizabeth S. Kaufman

  • Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document

    Hector M. Garcia-Garcia;Eugène P. McFadden;Andrew Farb;Roxana Mehran

  • Cessation of dual antiplatelet treatment and cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PARIS): 2 year results from a prospective observational study.

    Roxana Mehran;Usman Baber;Philippe Gabriel Steg;Cono Ariti

  • Distal Microcirculatory Protection During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

    Gregg W. Stone;John Webb;David A. Cox;Bruce R. Brodie

  • Combined Accelerated Tissue-Plasminogen Activator and Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Integrin Receptor Blockade With Integrilin in Acute Myocardial Infarction Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Ranging Trial

    E. Magnus Ohman;Neal S. Kleiman;Gerald Gacioch;Seth J. Worley

  • Coronary Thrombosis and Major Bleeding After PCI With Drug-Eluting Stents: Risk Scores From PARIS.

    Usman Baber;Roxana Mehran;Gennaro Giustino;David J. Cohen

  • Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

    Giuseppe Ferrante;Sunil V. Rao;Peter Jüni;Bruno R. Da Costa

  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for Patients With Medically Refractory Myocardial Ischemia and Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes With Bypass: A Multicenter, Randomized Trial

    Douglass A Morrison;Gulshan Sethi;Jerome Sacks;William Henderson

  • Shifting the open-artery hypothesis downstream: the quest for optimal reperfusion.

    Matthew T Roe;E.Magnus Ohman;Arthur C.P Maas;Robert H Christenson

  • Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials

    Hector M. Garcia-Garcia;Eugene P. McFadden;Andrew Farb;Roxana Mehran

Frequent Co-Authors

Roxana Mehran
Roxana Mehran Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
C. Michael Gibson
C. Michael Gibson Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Sunil V. Rao
Sunil V. Rao Duke University School of Medicine
George Dangas
George Dangas Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Robert M. Califf
Robert M. Califf Duke University
Philippe Gabriel Steg
Philippe Gabriel Steg Université Paris Cité
Stuart J. Pocock
Stuart J. Pocock London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Antonio Colombo
Antonio Colombo Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS
Timothy D. Henry
Timothy D. Henry Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Alaide Chieffo
Alaide Chieffo Vita-Salute San Raffaele University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

While studying Medicine in the USA traditionally requires in-person clinical training, there are several related online degrees that can expand your career options in healthcare. Many students explore these pathways for greater flexibility, quicker entry into specialized fields, or to advance existing credentials.

For those interested in mental health, you may consider the shortest online pmhnp programs, which prepare registered nurses to become Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioners at an accelerated pace. Alternatively, if you are drawn to healthcare management, you can compare the best online mha programs for respected and flexible options.

Cost-conscious learners can explore the cheapest mha programs online healthcare for affordable master's degrees that lead to high-demand administrative roles. Likewise, nursing professionals can take the next step with the most affordable dnp programs, maximizing advancement opportunities in clinical leadership while minimizing tuition costs.

Exploring these online degrees broadens your opportunities across clinical, administrative, and mental health roles—offering flexible pathways for aspiring and current healthcare professionals alike.

Best Scientists Citing Mitchell W. Krucoff

Trending Scientists