Intraaortic Balloon Pump vs Peripheral Ventricular Assist Device Use in the United States.

Sanaiha Y, Ziaeian B, Antonios JW, Kavianpour B, Anousheh R, Benharash P. Intraaortic Balloon Pump vs Peripheral Ventricular Assist Device Use in the United States. The Annals of thoracic surgery. 2020 Dec 1; 110(6):1997-2005.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to characterize practical use trends and outcomes for intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pVAD) use in cardiogenic shock at a national level. METHODS: An analysis of all adult patients admitted nonelectively for cardiogenic shock from January 2008 through December 2017 was performed using the National Inpatient Sample. Trends of inpatient IABP and pVAD use were analyzed using survey-weighted estimates and the modified Cochran-Armitage test for significance. Multivariable regression models and inverse probability of treatment weights were used to perform risk-adjusted analyses of pVAD mortality, a composite of adverse events (AE), and resource use, with IABP as reference. RESULTS: Of an estimated 774,310 patients admitted with cardiogenic shock, 143,051 received a device: IABP, 127,792 (16.5%); or pVAD, 15,259 (2.0%). IABP use decreased (23.8% to 12.7%; P for trend < .001), whereas pVAD implantation increased significantly during the study period (0.2% to 4.5%; P for trend < .001). Inverse probability of treatment weights demonstrated significantly higher odds of mortality with pVAD (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 2.2), but not AE (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.27), compared with IABP. After risk adjustment, pVAD use was associated with an additional $15,202 (P < .001) in cost for survivors and $29,643 for nonsurvivors (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, the rate of pVAD use for cardiogenic shock significantly increased. Compared with IABP, pVAD use was associated with increased mortality, higher costs, and several AEs. Multi-institutional clinical trials with rigorous inclusion criteria are warranted to evaluate the clinical utility of pVADs in the modern era.