Intra-aortic balloon pump is associated with the lowest whereas Impella with the highest inpatient mortality and complications regardless of severity or hospital types.

IF 3.1 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-31 DOI:10.1007/s12928-024-00993-8
Mohammad Reza Movahed, Armin Talle, Mehrtash Hashemzadeh
{"title":"Intra-aortic balloon pump is associated with the lowest whereas Impella with the highest inpatient mortality and complications regardless of severity or hospital types.","authors":"Mohammad Reza Movahed, Armin Talle, Mehrtash Hashemzadeh","doi":"10.1007/s12928-024-00993-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Impella and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are commonly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, the effect on mortality remains controversial. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of Impella and IABP on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock the large Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was utilized to study any association between the use of IABP or Impella on outcome. ICD-10 codes for Impella, IABP, and cardiogenic shock for available years 2016-2020 were utilized. A total of 844,020 patients had a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. A total of 101,870 patients were treated with IABP and 39645 with an Impella. Total inpatient mortality without any device was 34.2% vs only 25.1% with IABP use (OR = 0.65, CI 0.62-0.67) but was highest at 40.7% with Impella utilization (OR = 1.32, CI 1.26-1.39). After adjusting for 47 variables, Impella utilization remained associated with the highest mortality (OR: 1.33, CI 1.25-1.41, p < 0.001), whereas IABP remained associated with the lowest mortality (OR: 0.69, CI 0.66-0.72, p < 0.001). Separating rural vs teaching hospitals revealed similar findings. In patients with cardiogenic shock, the use of Impella was associated with the highest whereas IABP was associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality regardless of comorbid condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":9439,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":"252-261"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-024-00993-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Impella and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) are commonly utilized in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, the effect on mortality remains controversial. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of Impella and IABP on mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock the large Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was utilized to study any association between the use of IABP or Impella on outcome. ICD-10 codes for Impella, IABP, and cardiogenic shock for available years 2016-2020 were utilized. A total of 844,020 patients had a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. A total of 101,870 patients were treated with IABP and 39645 with an Impella. Total inpatient mortality without any device was 34.2% vs only 25.1% with IABP use (OR = 0.65, CI 0.62-0.67) but was highest at 40.7% with Impella utilization (OR = 1.32, CI 1.26-1.39). After adjusting for 47 variables, Impella utilization remained associated with the highest mortality (OR: 1.33, CI 1.25-1.41, p < 0.001), whereas IABP remained associated with the lowest mortality (OR: 0.69, CI 0.66-0.72, p < 0.001). Separating rural vs teaching hospitals revealed similar findings. In patients with cardiogenic shock, the use of Impella was associated with the highest whereas IABP was associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality regardless of comorbid condition.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无论病情严重程度或医院类型如何,主动脉内球囊泵的相关死亡率最低,而 Impella 的相关住院死亡率和并发症最高。
Impella和主动脉内球囊反搏泵(IABP)是心源性休克患者的常用工具。然而,它们对死亡率的影响仍存在争议。本研究的目的是评估Impella和IABP对心源性休克患者死亡率的影响,并利用大型全国住院患者样本(NIS)数据库来研究IABP或Impella的使用与结果之间的关联。数据库使用了 2016-2020 年间有关 Impella、IABP 和心源性休克的 ICD-10 编码。共有 844,020 名患者被诊断为心源性休克。共有101870名患者接受了IABP治疗,39645名患者接受了Impella治疗。未使用任何设备的住院患者总死亡率为 34.2%,而使用 IABP 的住院患者总死亡率仅为 25.1%(OR = 0.65,CI 0.62-0.67),但使用 Impella 的住院患者总死亡率最高,为 40.7%(OR = 1.32,CI 1.26-1.39)。在对 47 个变量进行调整后,使用 Impella 的死亡率仍然最高(OR:1.33,CI 1.25-1.41,p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics
Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) is an international journal covering the field of cardiovascular disease and includes cardiac (coronary and noncoronary) and peripheral interventions and therapeutics. Articles are subject to peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability. CVIT is an official journal of The Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics.
期刊最新文献
3D printing-enhanced transcatheter closure of residual shunts post-ventricular septal perforation: multimodal imaging's crucial role. Physician attending cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for early aortic structural valve deterioration: non-invasive method to identify the regurgitate location. Efficacy of R-N cusp-overlap view as a complementary approach for optimal neocommissural alignment with Navitor valve. Assessment of fractal ratio of vessel diameters in coronary bifurcation lesions by angiography and intravascular ultrasound. Uncrossable aortic stenosis during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: application of balloon-assisted tracking technique.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1