Logo image
Back
Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: analysis of national inpatient sample data, 2007 through 2012
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: analysis of national inpatient sample data, 2007 through 2012

Rohan Khera, Peter Cram, Xin Lu, Ankur Vyas, Alicia Gerke, Gary E Rosenthal, Phillip A Horwitz and Saket Girotra
JAMA internal medicine, Vol.175(6), pp.941-950
06/2015
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7856
PMCID: PMC4780323
PMID: 25822170
url
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7856View
Published (Version of record) Open Access

Related content

Has comment

Abstract

Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) provide robust hemodynamic support compared with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), but clinical use patterns are unknown. To examine contemporary patterns in PVAD use in the United States and compare them with use of IABPs. Retrospective study of adults older than 18 years who received a PVAD or IABP while hospitalized in the United States (2007-2012). Temporal trends in utilization, patient and hospital characteristics, in-hospital mortality, and cost of PVAD use compared with IABP. During 2007 through 2012, utilization of PVADs increased 30-fold (4.6 per million discharges in 2007 to 138 per million discharges in 2012; P for trend < .001) while utilization of IABPs decreased from 1738 per million discharges in 2008 to 1608 per million discharges in 2012 (P for trend = .02). In 2007, an estimated 72 hospitals used PVADs, increasing to 477 in 2011 (P for trend < .001). The number of hospitals with an annual volume of 10 or more PVAD procedures per year increased from 0 in 2007 to 102 in 2011 (21.4% of PVAD-using hospitals; P for trend < .001). Among PVAD recipients, 67.3% had a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock or acute myocardial infarction (AMI). There was a temporal increase in the use of PVADs in older patients and patients with AMI, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease (P for trend < .001 for all). Overall, mortality in PVAD recipients was 28.8%, and mean (SE) hospitalization cost was $85,580 ($4165); both were significantly higher in PVAD recipients with cardiogenic shock (mortality, 47.5%; mean [SE] cost, $113,695 [$6260]; P < .001 for both). The PVAD recipients were less likely than IABP recipients to have cardiogenic shock (34.3% vs 41.2%; P = .001), AMI (48.0% vs 68.6%; P < .001), and undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery (6.2% vs 43.2%; P < .001), but more likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (70.9% vs 40.4%; P < .001). In propensity-matched analysis, PVADs were associated with higher mortality compared with IABP (odds ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.06-1.43]; P = .007). There has been a substantial increase in the use of PVADs in recent years with an accompanying decrease in the use of IABPs. Given the high mortality, associated cost, and uncertain evidence for a clear benefit, randomized clinical trials are needed to determine whether use of PVADs leads to improved patient outcomes.
 United States Heart-Assist Devices - utilization Heart-Assist Devices - trends Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping - utilization Humans Middle Aged Mortality Female Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping - trends Male Aged Retrospective Studies

Details

Metrics

15 Record Views
115 Times Cited - Web of Science
Logo image