INTRODUCTION: This study compared inpatient outcomes related to the use of these two devices among patients who developed cardiogenic shock not due to acute myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization. METHODS: We extracted admission-level records of patients with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock who underwent either PVAD or IABP implantation from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2010 to 2014. Our outcomes of interest were mortality and length of stay. RESULTS: Inpatient mortality was significantly higher in the PVAD cohort. In multivariate analysis, PVAD use in these patients was associated with higher mortality. There was no difference in the length of stay between both groups among patients that survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: In our analysis of the NIS database, the use of PVADs in patients with cardiogenic shock of non-ischemic origin was associated with higher mortality when compared to IABP use.
INTRODUCTION: This study compared inpatient outcomes related to the use of these two devices among patients who developed cardiogenic shock not due to acute myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization. METHODS: We extracted admission-level records of patients with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock who underwent either PVAD or IABP implantation from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2010 to 2014. Our outcomes of interest were mortality and length of stay. RESULTS: Inpatient mortality was significantly higher in the PVAD cohort. In multivariate analysis, PVAD use in these patients was associated with higher mortality. There was no difference in the length of stay between both groups among patients that survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: In our analysis of the NIS database, the use of PVADs in patients with cardiogenic shock of non-ischemic origin was associated with higher mortality when compared to IABP use.