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, Saket Girotra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

103 Scopus citations

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) provide robust hemodynamic support compared with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), but clinical use patterns are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine contemporary patterns in PVAD use in the United States and compare them with use of IABPs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of adults older than 18 years who received a PVAD or IABP while hospitalized in the United States (2007-2012). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Temporal trends in utilization, patient and hospital characteristics, in-hospital mortality, and cost of PVAD use compared with IABP. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)941-950
Number of pages10
JournalJAMA Internal Medicine
Volume175
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: Analysis of National Inpatient Sample data, 2007 through 2012'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this