Hiren Patel1, Anupama Shivaraju2, Gregg C Fonarow3, Hui Xie4, Weihua Gao4, Adhir R Shroff2, Mladen I Vidovich5. 1. Division of Internal Medicine Residency Program, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL. 2. Division of Cardiology, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL. 3. Division of Cardiology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Cancer Center, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL. 5. Division of Cardiology, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: miv@uic.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With conflicting evidence regarding the usefulness of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), reports of IABP use in the United States have been inconsistent. Our objective was to examine trends in IABP usage in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States and to evaluate the association of IABP use with mortality. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational study using patient data obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 1998 to 2008. Patients undergoing any PCI (1,552,602 procedures) for a primary diagnosis of symptomatic coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome, including non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall use of IABP significantly decreased during the study period from 0.99% in 1998 to 0.36% in 2008 (univariate and multivariate P for trend < .0001). Patients who received IABP had substantially higher rates of shock compared with those who did not receive IABP (38.09% vs 0.70%; P < .0001), which was associated with markedly higher inhospital mortality rates (20.31% vs 0.72%; P < .0001). However, IABP use significantly decreased in patients with shock (36.5%-13.4%) and acute myocardial infarction (2.23%-0.84%) (univariate and multivariate P for trend for both < .0001). A temporal reduction in all-cause PCI-associated mortality from 1.1% in 1998 to 0.86% in 2008 (univariate and multivariate P for trend < .0001) was also observed. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of IABP associated with PCI significantly decreased between 1998 and 2008 in the United States, even among patients with acute myocardial infarction and shock. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: With conflicting evidence regarding the usefulness of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), reports of IABP use in the United States have been inconsistent. Our objective was to examine trends in IABP usage in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States and to evaluate the association of IABP use with mortality. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational study using patient data obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 1998 to 2008. Patients undergoing any PCI (1,552,602 procedures) for a primary diagnosis of symptomatic coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome, including non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were evaluated. RESULTS: The overall use of IABP significantly decreased during the study period from 0.99% in 1998 to 0.36% in 2008 (univariate and multivariate P for trend < .0001). Patients who received IABP had substantially higher rates of shock compared with those who did not receive IABP (38.09% vs 0.70%; P < .0001), which was associated with markedly higher inhospital mortality rates (20.31% vs 0.72%; P < .0001). However, IABP use significantly decreased in patients with shock (36.5%-13.4%) and acute myocardial infarction (2.23%-0.84%) (univariate and multivariate P for trend for both < .0001). A temporal reduction in all-cause PCI-associated mortality from 1.1% in 1998 to 0.86% in 2008 (univariate and multivariate P for trend < .0001) was also observed. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of IABP associated with PCI significantly decreased between 1998 and 2008 in the United States, even among patients with acute myocardial infarction and shock. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Jeptha P Curtis; Saif S Rathore; Yongfei Wang; Jersey Chen; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2011-12-06
Authors: Krischan D Sjauw; Annemarie E Engström; Marije M Vis; René J van der Schaaf; Jan Baan; Karel T Koch; Robbert J de Winter; Jan J Piek; Jan G P Tijssen; José P S Henriques Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: R Scott Wright; Jeffrey L Anderson; Cynthia D Adams; Charles R Bridges; Donald E Casey; Steven M Ettinger; Francis M Fesmire; Theodore G Ganiats; Hani Jneid; A Michael Lincoff; Eric D Peterson; George J Philippides; Pierre Theroux; Nanette K Wenger; James Patrick Zidar; Jeffrey L Anderson; Cynthia D Adams; Elliott M Antman; Charles R Bridges; Robert M Califf; Donald E Casey; William E Chavey; Francis M Fesmire; Judith S Hochman; Thomas N Levin; A Michael Lincoff; Eric D Peterson; Pierre Theroux; Nanette Kass Wenger; James Patrick Zidar Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Ph Gabriel Steg; Stefan K James; Dan Atar; Luigi P Badano; Carina Blömstrom-Lundqvist; Michael A Borger; Carlo Di Mario; Kenneth Dickstein; Gregory Ducrocq; Francisco Fernandez-Aviles; Anthony H Gershlick; Pantaleo Giannuzzi; Sigrun Halvorsen; Kurt Huber; Peter Juni; Adnan Kastrati; Juhani Knuuti; Mattie J Lenzen; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Marco Valgimigli; Arnoud van 't Hof; Petr Widimsky; Doron Zahger Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Manesh R Patel; Richard W Smalling; Holger Thiele; Huiman X Barnhart; Yi Zhou; Praveen Chandra; Derek Chew; Marc Cohen; John French; Divaka Perera; E Magnus Ohman Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Robert J Goldberg; Frederick A Spencer; Joel M Gore; Darleen Lessard; Jorge Yarzebski Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sherif S Zaky; Amgad H Hanna; Wael A Sakr Esa; Meng Xu; Cheryl Lober; Daniel I Sessler; Gonzalo Gonzalez-Stawinski; Robert M Savage; C Allen Bashour Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2009-03-12 Impact factor: 2.628