Sanket S Dhruva1,2, Joseph S Ross3,4,5, Bobak J Mortazavi3,6,7,8, Nathan C Hurley6, Harlan M Krumholz3,5,8, Jeptha P Curtis3,8, Alyssa P Berkowitz3, Frederick A Masoudi9, John C Messenger9, Craig S Parzynski3, Che G Ngufor10,11, Saket Girotra12,13, Amit P Amin14, Nilay D Shah10,15, Nihar R Desai3,8. 1. University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco. 2. Section of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 3. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. 4. Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. 6. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station. 7. Center for Remote Health Technologies and Systems, Texas A&M University, College Station. 8. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 9. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora. 10. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 11. Division of Digital Health Sciences, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 12. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City. 13. Center for Access & Delivery Research & Evaluation (CADRE), Iowa City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Iowa City, Iowa. 14. Cardiovascular Division, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 15. Division of Health Care Policy Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Abstract
Importance: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock despite limited evidence of their clinical benefit. Objective: To examine trends in the use of MCS devices among patients who underwent PCI for AMI with cardiogenic shock, hospital-level use variation, and factors associated with use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the CathPCI and Chest Pain-MI Registries of the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, were identified from both registries. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2020. Exposures: Therapies to provide hemodynamic support were categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, or another MCS device), or medical therapy only. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use. Results: Among the 28 304 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.6) years and 18 968 were men (67.0%). The overall MCS device use was constant from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2017, although use of intravascular microaxial LVADs significantly increased (from 4.1% to 9.8%; P < .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P < .001). A significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use was found. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) proportion of patients who received MCS devices was 42% (30%-54%), and the median proportion of patients who received intravascular microaxial LVADs was 1% (0%-10%). In multivariable analyses, cardiac arrest at first medical contact or during hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.09) and severe left main and/or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.54) were patient characteristics that were associated with higher odds of receiving intravascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, among patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, overall use of MCS devices was constant, and a 2.5-fold increase in intravascular microaxial LVAD use was found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use. These trends were observed despite limited clinical trial evidence of improved outcomes associated with device use.
Importance: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, including intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), are used in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock despite limited evidence of their clinical benefit. Objective: To examine trends in the use of MCS devices among patients who underwent PCI for AMI with cardiogenic shock, hospital-level use variation, and factors associated with use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the CathPCI and Chest Pain-MI Registries of the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, were identified from both registries. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to August 2020. Exposures: Therapies to provide hemodynamic support were categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD, IABP, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, other devices, combined IABP and intravascular microaxial LVAD, combined IABP and other device (defined as TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, LVAD, or another MCS device), or medical therapy only. Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use. Results: Among the 28 304 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.6) years and 18 968 were men (67.0%). The overall MCS device use was constant from the fourth quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2017, although use of intravascular microaxial LVADs significantly increased (from 4.1% to 9.8%; P < .001), whereas use of IABPs significantly decreased (from 34.8% to 30.0%; P < .001). A significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use was found. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) proportion of patients who received MCS devices was 42% (30%-54%), and the median proportion of patients who received intravascular microaxial LVADs was 1% (0%-10%). In multivariable analyses, cardiac arrest at first medical contact or during hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.58-2.09) and severe left main and/or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.20-1.54) were patient characteristics that were associated with higher odds of receiving intravascular microaxial LVADs only compared with IABPs only. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, among patients who underwent PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, overall use of MCS devices was constant, and a 2.5-fold increase in intravascular microaxial LVAD use was found along with a corresponding decrease in IABP use and a significant hospital-level variation in MCS device use. These trends were observed despite limited clinical trial evidence of improved outcomes associated with device use.
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: David A Baran; Cindy L Grines; Steven Bailey; Daniel Burkhoff; Shelley A Hall; Timothy D Henry; Steven M Hollenberg; Navin K Kapur; William O'Neill; Joseph P Ornato; Kelly Stelling; Holger Thiele; Sean van Diepen; Srihari S Naidu Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-05-19 Impact factor: 2.692
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: Adrian F Hernandez; Gregg C Fonarow; Li Liang; Sana M Al-Khatib; Lesley H Curtis; Kenneth A LaBresh; Clyde W Yancy; Nancy M Albert; Eric D Peterson Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Borja Ibanez; Stefan James; Stefan Agewall; Manuel J Antunes; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; Héctor Bueno; Alida L P Caforio; Filippo Crea; John A Goudevenos; Sigrun Halvorsen; Gerhard Hindricks; Adnan Kastrati; Mattie J Lenzen; Eva Prescott; Marco Roffi; Marco Valgimigli; Christoph Varenhorst; Pascal Vranckx; Petr Widimský Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Eric D Peterson; Matthew T Roe; John S Rumsfeld; Richard E Shaw; Ralph G Brindis; Gregg C Fonarow; Christopher P Cannon Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2009-09
Authors: Alastair G Proudfoot; Antonis Kalakoutas; Susanna Meade; Mark J D Griffiths; Mir Basir; Francesco Burzotta; Sharon Chih; Eddy Fan; Jonathan Haft; Nasrien Ibrahim; Natalie Kruit; Hoong Sern Lim; David A Morrow; Jun Nakata; Susanna Price; Carolyn Rosner; Robert Roswell; Mark A Samaan; Marc D Samsky; Holger Thiele; Alexander G Truesdell; Sean van Diepen; Michelle Doughty Voeltz; Peter M Irving Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2021-11-22 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Riley J Batchelor; Andrew Wheelahan; Wayne C Zheng; Dion Stub; Yang Yang; William Chan Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 4.964