Variation in mechanical circulatory support use for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Heart Pub Date : 2025-08-24 DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2024-325413
Arjun Verma, Nikhil L Chervu, Justin J Kim, Saad Mallick, Boback Ziaeian, Peyman Benharash
{"title":"Variation in mechanical circulatory support use for acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.","authors":"Arjun Verma, Nikhil L Chervu, Justin J Kim, Saad Mallick, Boback Ziaeian, Peyman Benharash","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2024-325413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a leading cause of mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Some patients may require intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) placement; however, there is a paucity of standardised algorithms to guide the deployment of each device. The present study evaluated interhospital variation in the use of IABP and PVAD for AMI CS and identified institutional factors associated with hospital-level device preference.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All non-elective adult hospitalisations entailing AMI and CS were identified within the 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were grouped into IABP, PVAD and non-mechanical circulatory support cohorts. The primary aim was to quantify the degree of interhospital variation in the use of IABP and PVAD. Escalation to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, length of stay and hospitalisation costs were secondarily assessed. Hospital factors, such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) volume and safety net status, were also analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 53 903 patients, 23.4% received IABP, and 12.5% received PVAD. After adjustment for patient factors, approximately 13% (11-14%) of variation in IABP use and 18% (15-20%) of PVAD use were attributable to centre-level differences. High-PVAD hospitals had higher annual PCI volume (257 (185-369) vs 204 (148-276) cases/year, p=0.032) and were more commonly safety net institutions (27.4% vs 11.3%, p=0.023), compared to high-IABP hospitals. Patients treated at high-IABP and high-PVAD hospitals faced similar length of stay (β -0.16, 95% CI -1.82 to 1.49) and costs (β -$3500, 95% CI -16 600 to 9600). Those at high-PVAD hospitals had lower adjusted risk of escalation to ECMO (0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.95) and LVAD implantation (0.28, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.94).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study identified wide interhospital variation in the use of IABP and PVAD for AMI CS. Although the likelihood of escalation to ECMO or LVAD differed between hospital types, resource utilisation was similar.</p>","PeriodicalId":12835,"journal":{"name":"Heart","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2024-325413","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a leading cause of mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Some patients may require intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) placement; however, there is a paucity of standardised algorithms to guide the deployment of each device. The present study evaluated interhospital variation in the use of IABP and PVAD for AMI CS and identified institutional factors associated with hospital-level device preference.

Methods: All non-elective adult hospitalisations entailing AMI and CS were identified within the 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients were grouped into IABP, PVAD and non-mechanical circulatory support cohorts. The primary aim was to quantify the degree of interhospital variation in the use of IABP and PVAD. Escalation to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, length of stay and hospitalisation costs were secondarily assessed. Hospital factors, such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) volume and safety net status, were also analysed.

Results: Among 53 903 patients, 23.4% received IABP, and 12.5% received PVAD. After adjustment for patient factors, approximately 13% (11-14%) of variation in IABP use and 18% (15-20%) of PVAD use were attributable to centre-level differences. High-PVAD hospitals had higher annual PCI volume (257 (185-369) vs 204 (148-276) cases/year, p=0.032) and were more commonly safety net institutions (27.4% vs 11.3%, p=0.023), compared to high-IABP hospitals. Patients treated at high-IABP and high-PVAD hospitals faced similar length of stay (β -0.16, 95% CI -1.82 to 1.49) and costs (β -$3500, 95% CI -16 600 to 9600). Those at high-PVAD hospitals had lower adjusted risk of escalation to ECMO (0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.95) and LVAD implantation (0.28, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.94).

Conclusions: The present study identified wide interhospital variation in the use of IABP and PVAD for AMI CS. Although the likelihood of escalation to ECMO or LVAD differed between hospital types, resource utilisation was similar.

机械循环支持在急性心肌梗死心源性休克中的应用差异。
背景:心源性休克(CS)是急性心肌梗死(AMI)后死亡的主要原因。一些患者可能需要主动脉内球囊泵(IABP)或经皮心室辅助装置(PVAD)置入;然而,目前缺乏标准化的算法来指导每种设备的部署。本研究评估了AMI CS使用IABP和PVAD的医院间差异,并确定了与医院级设备偏好相关的制度因素。方法:在2019年全国再入院数据库中确定所有涉及AMI和CS的非选择性成人住院。患者分为IABP组、PVAD组和非机械循环支持组。主要目的是量化医院间使用IABP和PVAD的差异程度。其次评估升级到体外膜氧合(ECMO)、左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入、住院时间和住院费用。医院因素,如经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)容量和安全网状况,也进行了分析。结果:53 903例患者中,接受IABP治疗的占23.4%,接受PVAD治疗的占12.5%。在对患者因素进行调整后,大约13%(11-14%)的IABP使用差异和18%(15-20%)的PVAD使用差异可归因于中心水平差异。与高iabp医院相比,高pvad医院的PCI年量更高(257例(185-369)vs 204例(148-276)/年,p=0.032),更常见的是安全网机构(27.4% vs 11.3%, p=0.023)。在高iabp和高pvad医院治疗的患者面临相似的住院时间(β -0.16, 95% CI -1.82至1.49)和费用(β - 3500美元,95% CI - 16600至9600)。在高pvad医院的患者升级为ECMO (0.52, 95% CI 0.29 ~ 0.95)和LVAD植入(0.28,95% CI 0.08 ~ 0.94)的调整风险较低。结论:本研究确定了在AMI CS中使用IABP和PVAD的医院间差异很大。虽然升级到ECMO或LVAD的可能性因医院类型而异,但资源利用是相似的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Heart
Heart 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
320
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Heart is an international peer reviewed journal that keeps cardiologists up to date with important research advances in cardiovascular disease. New scientific developments are highlighted in editorials and put in context with concise review articles. There is one free Editor’s Choice article in each issue, with open access options available to authors for all articles. Education in Heart articles provide a comprehensive, continuously updated, cardiology curriculum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信