Dataset Information

Racial Disparities in the Utilization and Outcomes of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock.

ABSTRACT: Racial disparities in utilization and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) are infrequently studied. This study sought to evaluate racial disparities in the outcomes of MCS in AMI-CS. The National Inpatient Sample (2012-2017) was used to identify adult AMI-CS admissions receiving MCS support. MCS devices were classified as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Self-reported race was classified as white, black and others. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay and discharge disposition. During this period, 90,071 admissions were included with white, black and other races constituting 73.6%, 8.3% and 18.1%, respectively. Compared to white and other races, black race admissions were on average younger, female, with greater comorbidities, and non-cardiac organ failure (all p < 0.001). Compared to the white race (31.3%), in-hospital mortality was comparable in black (31.4%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.05); p = 0.60) and other (30.2%; aOR 0.96 (95% CI 0.92-1.01); p = 0.10). Higher in-hospital mortality was noted in non-white races with concomitant cardiac arrest, and those receiving ECMO support. Black admissions had longer lengths of hospital stay (12.1 ± 14.2, 10.3 ± 11.2, 10.9 ± 1.2 days) and transferred less often (12.6%, 14.2%, 13.9%) compared to white and other races (both p < 0.001). In conclusion, this study of AMI-CS admissions receiving MCS devices did not identify racial disparities in in-hospital mortality. Black admissions had longer hospital stay and were transferred less often. Further evaluation with granular data including angiographic and hemodynamic parameters is essential to rule out racial differences.

SUBMITTER: Vojjini R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8037539 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMechanical 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.ExposuresTherapies 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 measuresUse of MCS devices overall and specific MCS devices, including intravascular microaxial LVAD, at both patient and hospital levels and variables associated with use.ResultsAmong 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 relevanceThis 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.

Project description:BackgroundAs health care markets in the United States have become increasingly consolidated, the role of market concentration on physician treatment behavior remains unclear. In cardiology, specifically, there has been evolving treatment of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) with increasing use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS). However, there remains wide variation in it use. The role of market concentration in the utilization of MCS in AMI-CS is unknown. We examined the use of MCS in AMI-CS and its effect on outcomes between competitive and concentrated markets.Methods and resultsWe used the National Inpatient Sample to query patients admitted with AMI-CS between 2003 and 2009. The primary study outcome was the use of mechanical circulatory support. The primary study exposure was market concentration, measured using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which was used to classify markets as unconcentrated (competitive), moderately concentrated, and highly concentrated. Baseline characteristics, procedures, and outcomes were compared for patients in differently concentrated markets. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between HHI and use of MCS.ResultsThere were 32,406 hospitalizations for patients admitted with AMI-CS. Patients in unconcentrated markets were more likely to receive MCS than in highly concentrated markets (unconcentrated 46.8% [5087/10,873], moderately concentrated 44.9% [2933/6526], and high concentrated 44.5% [6676/15,007], p < 0.01). Multivariable regression showed that patients in more concentrated markets had decreased use of MCS in patients in later years of the study period (2009, OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p = 0.02), with no effect in earlier years. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality.ConclusionMultivariable analysis did not show an association with market concentration and use of MCS in AMI-CS. However, subgroup analysis did show that competitive hospital markets were associated with more frequent use of MCS in AMI-CS as frequency of utilization increased over time. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of hospital market consolidation on the use of MCS and outcomes in AMI-CS.

Dataset Information

Racial Disparities in the Utilization and Outcomes of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets