Jordan B Strom1, Yuansong Zhao1, Changyu Shen1, Mabel Chung1,2, Duane S Pinto1, Jeffrey J Popma1, David J Cohen3, Robert W Yeh1. 1. Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA (J.B.S., Y.Z., C.S., M.C., D.S.P., J.J.P., R.W.Y.). 2. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (M.C.). 3. Saint Luke's Mid-America Heart Institute, Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine (D.J.C.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited knowledge exists on inter-hospital variation in the utilization of short-term, nondurable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations for MI with CS in 2014 in a nationally representative all-payer database were included. The proportion of hospitalizations for MI with CS using MCS (MCS ratio) and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. Hospital characteristics and outcomes were compared across quartiles of MCS usage. Of 1813 hospitals evaluated, 1440 (79.4%) performed ≥10 percutaneous coronary interventions annually. Of these, 1064 (73.9%) had at least one code for MCS. Forty-one percent of hospitals did not use MCS. The median (interquartile range) proportion of MCS use among admissions for MI with CS was 33.3% (0.0%-50.0%). High MCS utilizing hospitals were larger ( P<0.001). Eighty-five percent (2808/3301) of MCS use was intra-aortic balloon pump. There was significant variation in receipt of MCS at different hospitals (median odds ratio of receiving MCS at 2 random hospitals: 1.58; 95% CI, 1.45-1.70). Adjusted in-hospital mortality was not different across quartiles of MCS use (Q4 versus Q1; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16; P=0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in hospital use of MCS for MI with CS, unexplained by patient characteristics. The predominant form of MCS use is intra-aortic balloon pump. Risk-adjusted mortality rates were not different between higher and lower MCS-utilizing hospitals.
BACKGROUND: Limited knowledge exists on inter-hospital variation in the utilization of short-term, nondurable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalizations for MI with CS in 2014 in a nationally representative all-payer database were included. The proportion of hospitalizations for MI with CS using MCS (MCS ratio) and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. Hospital characteristics and outcomes were compared across quartiles of MCS usage. Of 1813 hospitals evaluated, 1440 (79.4%) performed ≥10 percutaneous coronary interventions annually. Of these, 1064 (73.9%) had at least one code for MCS. Forty-one percent of hospitals did not use MCS. The median (interquartile range) proportion of MCS use among admissions for MI with CS was 33.3% (0.0%-50.0%). High MCS utilizing hospitals were larger ( P<0.001). Eighty-five percent (2808/3301) of MCS use was intra-aortic balloon pump. There was significant variation in receipt of MCS at different hospitals (median odds ratio of receiving MCS at 2 random hospitals: 1.58; 95% CI, 1.45-1.70). Adjusted in-hospital mortality was not different across quartiles of MCS use (Q4 versus Q1; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16; P=0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in hospital use of MCS for MI with CS, unexplained by patient characteristics. The predominant form of MCS use is intra-aortic balloon pump. Risk-adjusted mortality rates were not different between higher and lower MCS-utilizing hospitals.
Authors: Amneet Sandhu; Lisa A McCoy; Smita I Negi; Irfan Hameed; Prashant Atri; Subhi J Al'Aref; Jeptha Curtis; Ed McNulty; H Vernon Anderson; Adhir Shroff; Mark Menegus; Rajesh V Swaminathan; Hitinder Gurm; John Messenger; Tracy Wang; Steven M Bradley Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Montika Bush; Til Stürmer; Sally C Stearns; Ross J Simpson; M Alan Brookhart; Wayne Rosamond; Anna M Kucharska-Newton Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Anvar Babaev; Paul D Frederick; David J Pasta; Nathan Every; Tina Sichrovsky; Judith S Hochman Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ryan P Barbaro; Folafoluwa O Odetola; Kelley M Kidwell; Matthew L Paden; Robert H Bartlett; Matthew M Davis; Gail M Annich Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Roland Prondzinsky; Henning Lemm; Michael Swyter; Nikolas Wegener; Susanne Unverzagt; Justin M Carter; Martin Russ; Axel Schlitt; Ute Buerke; Arnd Christoph; Hendrik Schmidt; Matthias Winkler; Joachim Thiery; Karl Werdan; Michael Buerke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: David D Berg; Christopher F Barnett; Benjamin B Kenigsberg; Alexander Papolos; Carlos L Alviar; Vivian M Baird-Zars; Gregory W Barsness; Erin A Bohula; Joseph Brennan; James A Burke; Anthony P Carnicelli; Sunit-Preet Chaudhry; Paul C Cremer; Lori B Daniels; Andrew P DeFilippis; Daniel A Gerber; Christopher B Granger; Steven Hollenberg; James M Horowitz; James D Gladden; Jason N Katz; Ellen C Keeley; Norma Keller; Michael C Kontos; Patrick R Lawler; Venu Menon; Thomas S Metkus; P Elliott Miller; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; L Kristin Newby; Jeong-Gun Park; Nicholas Phreaner; Robert O Roswell; Steven P Schulman; Shashank S Sinha; R Jeffrey Snell; Michael A Solomon; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Wayne Tymchak; Sean van Diepen; David A Morrow Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Nino Mihatov; Ramya C Mosarla; Ajay J Kirtane; Sahil A Parikh; Kenneth Rosenfield; Siyan Chen; Yang Song; Robert W Yeh; Eric A Secemsky Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 27.203
Authors: Anubodh S Varshney; David D Berg; Jason N Katz; Vivian M Baird-Zars; Erin A Bohula; Anthony P Carnicelli; Sunit-Preet Chaudhry; Jianping Guo; Patrick R Lawler; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; Shashank S Sinha; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Sean van Diepen; David A Morrow Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Sanket S Dhruva; Joseph S Ross; Bobak J Mortazavi; Nathan C Hurley; Harlan M Krumholz; Jeptha P Curtis; Alyssa P Berkowitz; Frederick A Masoudi; John C Messenger; Craig S Parzynski; Che G Ngufor; Saket Girotra; Amit P Amin; Nilay D Shah; Nihar R Desai Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-02-01
Authors: Adam S Vohra; Sun-Joo Jang; Dmitriy N Feldman; Parag Goyal; Udhay Krishnan; Christopher Sciria; Jim W Cheung; Luke K Kim Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 2.655