Dataset Information

Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States.

ABSTRACT: Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) and intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) are used to provide mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Contemporary trends in their utilization and impact on in-hospital mortality are not known. Using the National Inpatient Sample (2004 to 2012), we identified 5,031 patients who received a PVAD and 122,333 who received an IABP on the same day as PCI using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition codes. Utilization of MCS increased from 1.3% of all PCIs in 2004 to 3.4% in 2012 (p trend <0.001), with increase in the use of both PVAD (<1/10,000 PCIs [2004 to 2007] to 38/10,000 [2012]) and IABP (132/10,000 PCIs [2004] to 299/10,000[2012] p <0.0001 for both). PVAD recipients were older (69 vs 65 years), more likely to have heart failure (68% vs 41%), chronic kidney disease (27% vs 11%, p <0.001 for all), and be admitted electively (30% vs 11%), but less likely to have acute myocardial infarction (52% vs 90%), cardiogenic shock (23% vs 50%), or need mechanical ventilation (16% vs 29%) compared with IABP recipients. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was lower in PVAD compared with IABP recipients (12.8% vs 20.9%, p <0.001). However, in propensity-matched analyses (1:2), in-hospital mortality was similar in both groups (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.09). In conclusion, there has been a marked increase in the utilization of MCS in patients undergoing PCI. Unadjusted mortality using PVADs is lower than IABP but may be due to their selective use in patients at lower risk. Randomized trials are necessary to establish their effectiveness in supporting high-risk PCI.

SUBMITTER: Khera R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4690753 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States.

Khera Rohan R Cram Peter P Vaughan-Sarrazin Mary M Horwitz Phillip A PA Girotra Saket S

The American journal of cardiology 20151023 1

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) and intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) are used to provide mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Contemporary trends in their utilization and impact on in-hospital mortality are not known. Using the National Inpatient Sample (2004 to 2012), we identified 5,031 patients who received a PVAD and 122,333 who received an IABP on the same day as PCI using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth ...[more]

PMID: 26547292

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices (pMCSDs) are increasingly used on the assumption (but without solid proof) that their use will improve prognosis. A meta-analysis was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the benefits of pMCSDs in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (hr-PCI).MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trial.gov, and other databases to identify eligible studies. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality rates, reinfarction, and other adverse events using a random effect model.ResultsSixteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study. In the pooled analysis, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.61-1.66; RR 0.88 95% CI 0.66-1.17), reinfarction (RR 0.89 95% CI 0.69-1.14), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR 1.75 95% CI 0.47-6.42), heart failure (HF) (RR 0.54 95% CI 0.11-2.66), repeat revascularization (RR 0.73 95% CI 0.25-2.10), embolization (RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13-71.61), or arrhythmia (RR 2.81 95% CI 0.30-26.11). Compared with IABP, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 0.96 95% CI 0.71-1.29; RR 1.23 95% CI 0.88-1.72), reinfarction (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.68-1.42), stroke/TIA (RR 0.45 95% CI 0.1-1.95), acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.38-1.80), or arrhythmia (RR 1.52 95% CI 0.71-3.27), but LVADs were associated with a decrease in repeat revascularization (RR 0.26 95% CI 0.08-0.83). However, LVADs significantly increased the risk of bleeding compared with IABP (RR 2.85 95% CI 1.72-4.73).ConclusionsNeither LVADs nor IABP improves short or long-term survival in hr-PCI patients. LVADs are more likely to reduce repeat revascularization after PCI, but to increase the risk of bleeding events than IABP.

Project description:BackgroundSubstantial geographic variation exists in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) use across the United States. It is unclear the extent to which high PCI utilization can be explained by PCI for inappropriate indications. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between PCI rates across regional healthcare markets utilizing hospital referral regions (HRRs) and PCI appropriateness.MethodsThe number of PCI procedures in each HRR was obtained from the 2010 100% Medicare limited data set. HRRs were divided into quintiles of PCI utilization with increasing rates of utilization progressing to quintile 5. NCDR CathPCI Registry® data were used to evaluate patient characteristics, appropriate use criteria (AUC), and outcomes across the HRR quintiles defined by PCI utilization with the study population restricted to HRRs where ≥ 80% of the PCIs were performed at institutions participating in the registry. PCI appropriateness was defined using 2012 AUC by the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)/The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).ResultsOur study cohort comprised of 380,981 patients treated at 178 HRRs. Mean PCI rates per 1,000 increased from 4.6 in Quintile 1 to 10.8 in Quintile 5. The proportion of non-acute PCIs was 27.7% in Quintile 1 increasing to 30.7% in Quintile 5. Significant variation (p < 0.001) existed across the quintiles in the categorization of appropriateness across HRRs of utilization with more appropriate PCI in lower utilization areas (Appropriate: Q1, 76.53%, Q2, 75.326%, Q3, 75.23%, Q4, 73.95%, Q5, 72.768%; Inappropriate: Q1 3.92%, Q2 4.23%, Q3 4.32%, Q4 4.35%, Q5 4.05%; Uncertain: Q1 8.29%, Q2 8.84%, Q3 8.08%, Q4 9.01%, Q5 8.93%; Not Mappable: Q1 11.26%, Q2 11.67%, Q3 12.37%, Q4 12.69%, Q5 14.34%). There was no difference in risk-adjusted mortality across quintiles of PCI utilization.ConclusionsGeographic regions with lower PCI rates have a higher proportion of PCIs performed for appropriate indications. Areas that perform more PCIs also appear to perform more elective PCI and many could not be mapped by the AUC.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.

Dataset Information

Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States.

Publications

Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets