Yas Sanaiha1, Boback Ziaeian2, James W Antonios1, Behdad Kavianpour1, Ramtin Anousheh3, Peyman Benharash4. 1. Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Division of Cardiology, Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California. 3. Division of Cardiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 4. Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: pbenharash@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to characterize practical use trends and outcomes for intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pVAD) use in cardiogenic shock at a national level. METHODS: An analysis of all adult patients admitted nonelectively for cardiogenic shock from January 2008 through December 2017 was performed using the National Inpatient Sample. Trends of inpatient IABP and pVAD use were analyzed using survey-weighted estimates and the modified Cochran-Armitage test for significance. Multivariable regression models and inverse probability of treatment weights were used to perform risk-adjusted analyses of pVAD mortality, a composite of adverse events (AE), and resource use, with IABP as reference. RESULTS: Of an estimated 774,310 patients admitted with cardiogenic shock, 143,051 received a device: IABP, 127,792 (16.5%); or pVAD, 15,259 (2.0%). IABP use decreased (23.8% to 12.7%; P for trend <.001), whereas pVAD implantation increased significantly during the study period (0.2% to 4.5%; P for trend <.001). Inverse probability of treatment weights demonstrated significantly higher odds of mortality with pVAD (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 2.2), but not AE (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.27), compared with IABP. After risk adjustment, pVAD use was associated with an additional $15,202 (P < .001) in cost for survivors and $29,643 for nonsurvivors (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, the rate of pVAD use for cardiogenic shock significantly increased. Compared with IABP, pVAD use was associated with increased mortality, higher costs, and several AEs. Multi-institutional clinical trials with rigorous inclusion criteria are warranted to evaluate the clinical utility of pVADs in the modern era.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to characterize practical use trends and outcomes for intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pVAD) use in cardiogenic shock at a national level. METHODS: An analysis of all adult patients admitted nonelectively for cardiogenic shock from January 2008 through December 2017 was performed using the National Inpatient Sample. Trends of inpatient IABP and pVAD use were analyzed using survey-weighted estimates and the modified Cochran-Armitage test for significance. Multivariable regression models and inverse probability of treatment weights were used to perform risk-adjusted analyses of pVAD mortality, a composite of adverse events (AE), and resource use, with IABP as reference. RESULTS: Of an estimated 774,310 patients admitted with cardiogenic shock, 143,051 received a device: IABP, 127,792 (16.5%); or pVAD, 15,259 (2.0%). IABP use decreased (23.8% to 12.7%; P for trend <.001), whereas pVAD implantation increased significantly during the study period (0.2% to 4.5%; P for trend <.001). Inverse probability of treatment weights demonstrated significantly higher odds of mortality with pVAD (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 2.2), but not AE (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.27), compared with IABP. After risk adjustment, pVAD use was associated with an additional $15,202 (P < .001) in cost for survivors and $29,643 for nonsurvivors (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, the rate of pVAD use for cardiogenic shock significantly increased. Compared with IABP, pVAD use was associated with increased mortality, higher costs, and several AEs. Multi-institutional clinical trials with rigorous inclusion criteria are warranted to evaluate the clinical utility of pVADs in the modern era.
Authors: Yoan Lamarche; Anson Cheung; Andrew Ignaszewski; Jennifer Higgins; Annemarie Kaan; Donald E G Griesdale; Robert Moss Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Francesco Burzotta; Carlo Trani; Sagar N Doshi; Jonathan Townend; Robert Jan van Geuns; Patrick Hunziker; Bernhard Schieffer; Konstantinos Karatolios; Jacob Eifer Møller; Flavio L Ribichini; Andreas Schäfer; José P S Henriques Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Rohan Khera; Suveen Angraal; Tyler Couch; John W Welsh; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Saket Girotra; Paul S Chan; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: S Scheidt; G Wilner; H Mueller; D Summers; M Lesch; G Wolff; J Krakauer; M Rubenfire; P Fleming; G Noon; N Oldham; T Killip; A Kantrowitz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1973-05-10 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Holger Thiele; Alexander Jobs; Dagmar M Ouweneel; Jose P S Henriques; Melchior Seyfarth; Steffen Desch; Ingo Eitel; Janine Pöss; Georg Fuernau; Suzanne de Waha Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Florian Krackhardt; Carsten Skurk; Brunilda Alushi; Andel Douedari; Georg Froehlig; Wulf Knie; Thomas H Wurster; David M Leistner; Barbara Elisabeth Stahli; Hans-Christian Mochmann; Burkert Pieske; Ulf Landmesser Journal: Open Heart Date: 2019-05-13
Authors: Konstantinos Dean Boudoulas; Andrew Pederzolli; Uksha Saini; Richard J Gumina; Ernest L Mazzaferri; Michael Davis; Charles A Bush; Quinn Capers; Raymond Magorien; Vincent J Pompili Journal: Acute Card Care Date: 2012-12