Dataset Information

Ten-year trends, predictors and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

There are limited data on the trends and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support (MCS)-assisted early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). In this study, we sought to assess the use, temporal trends, and outcomes of percutaneous MCS-assisted early PCI in AMI-CS.

Methods and results

Using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2005-2014, a retrospective cohort of AMI-CS admissions receiving early PCI (hospital day zero) was identified. MCS use was defined as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, resource utilisation, trends and predictors of MCS-assisted PCI. Of the 110,452 admissions, MCS assistance was used in 55%. IABP, pLVAD and ECMO were used in 94.8%, 4.2% and 1%, respectively. During 2009-2014, there was a decrease in MCS-assisted PCI due to a decrease in IABP, despite an increase in pLVAD and ECMO. Younger age, male sex, lower comorbidity, and cardiac arrest independently predicted MCS use. MCS-assisted PCI was predictive of higher in-hospital mortality (31% vs 26%, adjusted odds ratio 1.23 [1.19-1.27]; p<0.001) and greater resource utilisation. IABP-assisted PCI had lower in-hospital mortality and lesser resource utilisation compared to pLVAD/ECMO.

Conclusions

MCS-assisted PCI identified a sicker AMI-CS cohort. There was a decrease in IABP and an increase in pLVAD/ECMO.

SUBMITTER: Vallabhajosyula S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9725008 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ten-year trends, predictors and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

Vallabhajosyula Saraschandra S Prasad Abhiram A Sandhu Gurpreet S GS Bell Malcolm R MR Gulati Rajiv R Eleid Mackram F MF Best Patricia J M PJM Gersh Bernard J BJ Singh Mandeep M Lerman Amir A Holmes David R DR Rihal Charanjit S CS Barsness Gregory W GW

EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 20210205 15

<h4>Aims</h4>There are limited data on the trends and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support (MCS)-assisted early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). In this study, we sought to assess the use, temporal trends, and outcomes of percutaneous MCS-assisted early PCI in AMI-CS.<h4>Methods and results</h4>Using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2005-2014, a retrospective cohort of AMI-CS admissions receiving early PCI ( ...[more]

PMID: 31746759

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.

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.

Dataset Information

Ten-year trends, predictors and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Ten-year trends, predictors and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets