BACKGROUND: There is paucity of data focusing on females' outcomes after the use of impeller pumps percutaneous ventricular assist devices (IPVADs). METHODS: Patients who received IPVADs during the period of October 1st, 2015-December 31, 2017, were identified from the United States National Readmission Database. A 1:1 propensity score matching was used to compare the outcomes between females and males. RESULTS: A total of 19,278 (Female = 5,456; Male = 13,822) patients were included in the current analysis. After propensity score matching and among all-comers who were treated with IPVADs, females had higher in-hospital major adverse events (MAEs) (38 vs. 32.6%, p < .01), mortality (31 vs. 28%, p < .01), vascular complications (3.3 vs. 2.1%, p < .01), major bleeding (7.8 vs. 4.8%, p < .01), nonhome discharges (21.6 vs. 16.3%; p < .01), and longer length of stay (7 days [IQR 2-12] vs. 6 days [IQR 2-12], p = .02) with higher 30-day readmission rate compared to males (20.5 vs.16.4%, p < .01). Furthermore, among patients who received the IPVADs for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI), females continued to have worse MAEs, which was driven by high rates of major bleeding. However, among patients who received IPVADs for cardiogenic shock (CS) the outcomes of females and males were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Among all-comers who received IPVADs, females suffered higher morbidity and mortality compared to males. Higher morbidity driven mainly by higher rates of major bleeding was seen among females who received IPVADs for the hemodynamic support during HRPCI and comparable outcomes were observed when the IPVADs were used for CS.
BACKGROUND: There is paucity of data focusing on females' outcomes after the use of impeller pumps percutaneous ventricular assist devices (IPVADs). METHODS: Patients who received IPVADs during the period of October 1st, 2015-December 31, 2017, were identified from the United States National Readmission Database. A 1:1 propensity score matching was used to compare the outcomes between females and males. RESULTS: A total of 19,278 (Female = 5,456; Male = 13,822) patients were included in the current analysis. After propensity score matching and among all-comers who were treated with IPVADs, females had higher in-hospital major adverse events (MAEs) (38 vs. 32.6%, p < .01), mortality (31 vs. 28%, p < .01), vascular complications (3.3 vs. 2.1%, p < .01), major bleeding (7.8 vs. 4.8%, p < .01), nonhome discharges (21.6 vs. 16.3%; p < .01), and longer length of stay (7 days [IQR 2-12] vs. 6 days [IQR 2-12], p = .02) with higher 30-day readmission rate compared to males (20.5 vs.16.4%, p < .01). Furthermore, among patients who received the IPVADs for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI), females continued to have worse MAEs, which was driven by high rates of major bleeding. However, among patients who received IPVADs for cardiogenic shock (CS) the outcomes of females and males were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Among all-comers who received IPVADs, females suffered higher morbidity and mortality compared to males. Higher morbidity driven mainly by higher rates of major bleeding was seen among females who received IPVADs for the hemodynamic support during HRPCI and comparable outcomes were observed when the IPVADs were used for CS.
Authors: Manal Alasnag; Alexander G Truesdell; Holli Williams; Sara C Martinez; Syeda Kashfi Qadri; John P Skendelas; William A Jakobleff; Mirvat Alasnag Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: Charanjit S Rihal; Srihari S Naidu; Michael M Givertz; Wilson Y Szeto; James A Burke; Navin K Kapur; Morton Kern; Kirk N Garratt; James A Goldstein; Vivian Dimas; Thomas Tu Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William W O'Neill; Neal S Kleiman; Jeffrey Moses; Jose P S Henriques; Simon Dixon; Joseph Massaro; Igor Palacios; Brijeshwar Maini; Suresh Mulukutla; Vladimír Dzavík; Jeffrey Popma; Pamela S Douglas; Magnus Ohman Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J J Ferguson; M Cohen; R J Freedman; G W Stone; M F Miller; D L Joseph; E M Ohman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-11-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael P Flaherty; Jeffrey W Moses; Ralf Westenfeld; Igor Palacios; William W O'Neill; Theodore L Schreiber; Michael J Lim; Amir Kaki; Ioana Ghiu; Roxanna Mehran Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andra L Blomkalns; Anita Y Chen; Judith S Hochman; Eric D Peterson; Kelly Trynosky; Deborah B Diercks; Gerard X Brogan; William E Boden; Matthew T Roe; E Magnus Ohman; W Brian Gibler; L Kristin Newby Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Amit P Amin; John A Spertus; Jeptha P Curtis; Nihar Desai; Frederick A Masoudi; Richard G Bach; Christian McNeely; Firas Al-Badarin; John A House; Hemant Kulkarni; Sunil V Rao Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-11-17 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: Roberto Scarsini; Giovanni L De Maria; Jubin Joseph; Lampson Fan; Thomas J Cahill; Rafail A Kotronias; Francesco Burzotta; James D Newton; Rajesh Kharbanda; Bernard Prendergast; Flavio Ribichini; Adrian P Banning Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-09-14 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Mohammed Osman; Mina M Benjamin; Sudarshan Balla; Babikir Kheiri; Christopher Bianco; Partho P Sengupta; Ramesh Daggubati; Midhun Malla; Stephen V Liu; Mamas Mamas; Brijesh Patel Journal: Cardiovasc Revasc Med Date: 2021-04-16
Authors: Mohammed Osman; Moinuddin Syed; Brijesh Patel; Muhammad Bilal Munir; Babikir Kheiri; Marco Caccamo; George Sokos; Sudarshan Balla; Mir Babar Basir; Navin K Kapur; Mamas A Mamas; Christopher M Bianco Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 5.501