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