PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 11, 2017Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology31 citations

Outcomes of catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia with mechanical hemodynamic support: An analysis of the Medicare database

View Full Paper
AAArash AryanaADAndré d’ÁvilaCCChristina Cool

Key Result

Mechanical support with PVAD during ventricular tachycardia ablation was associated with lower index mortality compared to IABP (6.5% vs. 19.1%; P=0.001).

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=345)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does mechanical support with a percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) improve clinical outcomes compared to an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients undergoing catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia?

P
Population
345 Medicare patients who underwent catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia with mechanical support (PVAD or IABP) between 2010 and 2013.
E
Exposure
Percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) during catheter ablation
C
Comparator
Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) during catheter ablation
O
Outcome
Index mortality and in-hospital outcomes (cardiogenic shock, renal failure, length of stay)hard clinical

In a retrospective Medicare cohort, the use of a PVAD rather than an IABP for mechanical support during VT ablation was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality, cardiogenic shock, and 30-day readmissions.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 6.5% vs 19.1%

p-value: p=0.001

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of data in favor of mechanical support during catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT). This study investigated the outcomes of VT ablation associated with mechanical support using percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) versus intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively examined the outcomes of patients who underwent VT ablation associated with PVAD versus IABP from 2010 to 2013, captured by the Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic File database. Data from 345 patients (PVAD = 230, IABP = 115) were examined. On admission, the incidence of heart failure was higher in PVAD (84.3% vs. 73.0%; P = 0.01) with similar rates of renal failure in PVAD versus IABP (33.0% vs. 37.4%; P = 0.42). However, PVAD was associated with reduced in-hospital cardiogenic shock (9.1% vs. 23.5%; P < 0.001), renal failure (11.7% vs. 21.7%; P = 0.01), and length of stay (8.4 ± 7.9 vs. 10.6 ± 7.5; P < 0.001), but with greater hospital discharges to home/self-care (66.0% vs. 51.6%; P = 0.02). Index mortality (6.5% vs. 19.1%; P = 0.001) and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (18.2% vs. 41.2%; P = 0.03) were significantly lower with PVAD versus IABP. Furthermore, PVAD was associated with lower all-cause (27.0% vs. 38.7%; P = 0.04) and heart failure-related (21.4% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.03) 30-day hospital readmissions, but with similar redo-VT ablation rates at 1 year (10.2% vs. 14.0%; P = 0.34). CONCLUSION: Among the cases captured by the Medicare database, catheter ablation of VT associated with mechanical support using PVAD was associated with reduced in-hospital cardiogenic shock, renal failure, length of stay, hospital readmissions and mortality, but no difference in redo-VT ablation at 1 year.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Aryana et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Ventricular tachycardia (n=345). Percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) vs. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was evaluated on Index mortality (p=0.001). Mechanical support with PVAD during ventricular tachycardia ablation was associated with lower index mortality compared to IABP (6.5% vs. 19.1%; P=0.001).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a27d33e02de31a9ffb5c862https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.13312
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper