PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 18, 2022JAMA Internal Medicine103 citationsOpen Access

Clinical Outcomes and Cost Associated With an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Patients Presenting With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

PMP. Elliott MillerSBSamantha G. BromfieldQMQinli Ma

Key Result

Intravascular LVAD use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared with IABP (36.2% vs 25.8%; OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.32-2.02).

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=3,077)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does an intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device compared to an intra-aortic balloon pump improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs in patients undergoing PCI for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?

P
Population
3,077 commercially insured patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), mean age 65.2 years, 32.0% with cardiac arrest, from 14 states across the US.
I
Intervention
Intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device (LVAD)
C
Comparator
Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)
O
Outcome
Mortality, stroke, severe bleeding, repeat revascularization, kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and total health care costs during the index admissionhard clinical

In patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI, the use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD was associated with higher mortality, bleeding, kidney replacement therapy, and costs compared to an IABP.

Main Result

Effect estimate: OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.32-2.02)

Absolute Event Rate: 36.2% vs 25.8%

Abstract

Importance: Intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device (LVAD) compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) has been associated with increased risk of mortality and bleeding among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, evidence on the association of device therapy with a broader array of clinical outcomes, including data on long-term outcomes and cost, is limited. Objective: To examine the association between intravascular LVAD or IABP use and clinical outcomes and cost in patients with AMI complicated by CS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective propensity-matched cohort study used administrative claims data for commercially insured patients from 14 states across the US. Patients included in the analysis underwent PCI for AMI complicated by CS from January 1, 2015, to April 30, 2020. Data analysis was performed from April to November 2021. Exposures: Use of either an intravascular LVAD or IABP. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were mortality, stroke, severe bleeding, repeat revascularization, kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and total health care costs during the index admission. Clinical outcomes and cost were also assessed at 30 days and 1 year. Results: Among 3077 patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by CS, the mean (SD) age was 65. 2 (12. 5) years, and 986 (32. 0%) had cardiac arrest. Among 817 propensity-matched pairs, intravascular LVAD use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital (36. 2% vs 25. 8%; odds ratio OR, 1. 63; 95% CI, 1. 32-2. 02), 30-day (40. 1% vs 28. 3%; OR, 1. 71; 95% CI, 1. 37-2. 13), and 1-year mortality (58. 9% vs 45. 0%; hazard ratio HR, 1. 44; 95% CI, 1. 21-1. 71) compared with IABP. At 30 days, intravascular LVAD use was associated with significantly higher bleeding (19. 1% vs 14. 5%; OR, 1. 35; 95% CI, 1. 04-1. 76), KRT (12. 2% vs 7. 0%; OR, 1. 88; 95% CI, 1. 30-2. 73), and mean cost (+51 680; 95% CI, 31 488-75 178). At 1 year, the association of intravascular LVAD use with bleeding (29. 7% vs 24. 3%; HR, 1. 36; 95% CI, 1. 05-1. 75), KRT (18. 1% vs 10. 9%; HR, 1. 95; 95% CI, 1. 35-2. 83), and mean cost (+46 609; 95% CI, 22 126-75 461) persisted. Conclusions and Relevance: In this propensity-matched analysis of patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by CS, intravascular LVAD use was associated with increased short-term and 1-year risk of mortality, bleeding, KRT, and cost compared with IABP. There is an urgent need for additional evidence surrounding the optimal management of patients with AMI complicated by CS.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Miller et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (n=3,077). Intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device (LVAD) vs. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32-2.02). Intravascular LVAD use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared with IABP (36.2% vs 25.8%; OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.32-2.02).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a085b069a6c4ba6e610952ahttps://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.2735
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper