Percutaneous Microaxial Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra‐Aortic Balloon Pump for Nonacute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock

Author:

Watanabe Atsuyuki1ORCID,Miyamoto Yoshihisa2ORCID,Ueyama Hiroki3,Gotanda Hiroshi4ORCID,Tsugawa Yusuke56ORCID,Kuno Toshiki78ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine Mount Sinai Beth Israel Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York NY

2. Division of Nephrology and Endocrinology The University of Tokyo Tokyo Japan

3. Division of Cardiology Emory University School of Medicine Atlanta GA

4. Division of General Internal Medicine Cedars‐Sinai Medical Center Los Angeles CA

5. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research David Geffen School of Medicine at The University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles CA

6. Department of Health Policy and Management UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles Los Angeles CA

7. Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center Albert Einstein College of Medicine New York NY

8. Division of Cardiology, Jacobi Medical Center Albert Einstein College of Medicine New York NY

Abstract

Background Evidence on the comparative outcomes following percutaneous microaxial ventricular assist devices (pVAD) versus intra‐aortic balloon pump for nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock is limited. Methods and Results We included 704 and 2140 Medicare fee‐for‐service beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years treated with pVAD and intra‐aortic balloon pump, respectively, for nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock from 2016 to 2020. Patients treated using pVAD compared with those treated using intra‐aortic balloon pump were more likely to be concurrently treated with mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and blood transfusions. We computed propensity scores for undergoing pVAD using patient‐ and hospital‐level factors and performed a matching weight analysis. The use of pVAD was associated with higher 30‐day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.59–2.33]) but not associated with in‐hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.81–1.24]), stroke (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56–1.47]), sepsis (OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.64–1.28]), and length of hospital stay (adjusted mean difference, +0.4 days [95% CI, −1.4 to +2.3]). A quasi‐experimental instrumental variable analysis using the cross‐sectional institutional practice preferences showed similar patterns, though not statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.28–6.89). Conclusions Our investigation using the national sample of Medicare beneficiaries showed that the use of pVAD compared with intra‐aortic balloon pump was associated with higher mortality in patients with nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock. Providers should be cautious about the use of pVAD for nonacute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, while adequately powered high‐quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to determine the clinical effects of pVAD.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3