Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Without Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background The use of mechanical circulatory support devices for high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased over the past decade despite limited data of benefit. We sought to examine the association between intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device (LVAD) versus i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: P. Elliott Miller, Aliza S. Gordon, Ying Liu, Tariq Ahmad, Samantha G. Bromfield, Saket Girotra, Carlos D. Davila, Geoffrey Crawford, John Whitney, Nihar R. Desai
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2025-01-01
Series:Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.124.037424
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849472403641466880
author P. Elliott Miller
Aliza S. Gordon
Ying Liu
Tariq Ahmad
Samantha G. Bromfield
Saket Girotra
Carlos D. Davila
Geoffrey Crawford
John Whitney
Nihar R. Desai
author_facet P. Elliott Miller
Aliza S. Gordon
Ying Liu
Tariq Ahmad
Samantha G. Bromfield
Saket Girotra
Carlos D. Davila
Geoffrey Crawford
John Whitney
Nihar R. Desai
author_sort P. Elliott Miller
collection DOAJ
description Background The use of mechanical circulatory support devices for high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased over the past decade despite limited data of benefit. We sought to examine the association between intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device (LVAD) versus intra‐aortic balloon pump use in patients without cardiogenic shock (CS) undergoing PCI. Methods and Results This retrospective study analyzed claims data from a large, insured population who underwent PCI without CS from April 1, 2016 to July 31, 2022. Using inverse probability treatment weighting, we assessed for the association between device type and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, bleeding, incident dialysis, repeat revascularization, and total health care costs during the index admission and at 30 days. We identified 2879 patients without CS who underwent PCI with either an intra‐aortic balloon pump or microaxial LVAD. The mean±SD age was 68.2±12.5 years, and 27% (n=764) were women. After propensity weighting, intravascular LVAD use was not associated with a significant difference in either in‐hospital (odds ratio [OR] 1.30 [95% CI, 0.88–1.91]; P=0.19) or 30‐day mortality (OR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.84–1.69]; P=0.33) compared with intra‐aortic balloon pump use. Compared with those receiving an intra‐aortic balloon pump, the mean total costs for the index admission ($96 716 versus $71 892; P<0.001) and at 30 days (+$16 671 [95% CI, $6639–$28 103]; P=0.001) were significantly higher in those receiving an intravascular LVAD. There was no significant association between device type and stroke, bleeding, incident dialysis, and repeat revascularization at any time point (all P>0.05). Conclusions In patients without CS undergoing PCI, intravascular LVAD use was associated with higher costs but not associated with lower mortality. Randomized data are needed to improve device selection for patients without CS undergoing PCI.
format Article
id doaj-art-6daf7b60bee0404f97628829d265d1c3
institution Kabale University
issn 2047-9980
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
spelling doaj-art-6daf7b60bee0404f97628829d265d1c32025-08-20T03:24:33ZengWileyJournal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease2047-99802025-01-0114210.1161/JAHA.124.037424Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Without Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary InterventionP. Elliott Miller0Aliza S. Gordon1Ying Liu2Tariq Ahmad3Samantha G. Bromfield4Saket Girotra5Carlos D. Davila6Geoffrey Crawford7John Whitney8Nihar R. Desai9Section of Cardiovascular Medicine Yale School of Medicine New Haven CT USAPublic Policy Institute, Elevance Health Indianapolis IN USAPublic Policy Institute, Elevance Health Indianapolis IN USASection of Cardiovascular Medicine Yale School of Medicine New Haven CT USAPublic Policy Institute, Elevance Health Indianapolis IN USADivision of Cardiology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX USASection of Cardiovascular Medicine Yale School of Medicine New Haven CT USAMedical Policy &amp; Technology Assessment Elevance Health Indianapolis IN USAMedical Policy &amp; Technology Assessment Elevance Health Indianapolis IN USASection of Cardiovascular Medicine Yale School of Medicine New Haven CT USABackground The use of mechanical circulatory support devices for high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased over the past decade despite limited data of benefit. We sought to examine the association between intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device (LVAD) versus intra‐aortic balloon pump use in patients without cardiogenic shock (CS) undergoing PCI. Methods and Results This retrospective study analyzed claims data from a large, insured population who underwent PCI without CS from April 1, 2016 to July 31, 2022. Using inverse probability treatment weighting, we assessed for the association between device type and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, bleeding, incident dialysis, repeat revascularization, and total health care costs during the index admission and at 30 days. We identified 2879 patients without CS who underwent PCI with either an intra‐aortic balloon pump or microaxial LVAD. The mean±SD age was 68.2±12.5 years, and 27% (n=764) were women. After propensity weighting, intravascular LVAD use was not associated with a significant difference in either in‐hospital (odds ratio [OR] 1.30 [95% CI, 0.88–1.91]; P=0.19) or 30‐day mortality (OR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.84–1.69]; P=0.33) compared with intra‐aortic balloon pump use. Compared with those receiving an intra‐aortic balloon pump, the mean total costs for the index admission ($96 716 versus $71 892; P<0.001) and at 30 days (+$16 671 [95% CI, $6639–$28 103]; P=0.001) were significantly higher in those receiving an intravascular LVAD. There was no significant association between device type and stroke, bleeding, incident dialysis, and repeat revascularization at any time point (all P>0.05). Conclusions In patients without CS undergoing PCI, intravascular LVAD use was associated with higher costs but not associated with lower mortality. Randomized data are needed to improve device selection for patients without CS undergoing PCI.https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.124.037424acute myocardial infarctionhigh‐risk PCImechanical circulatory support
spellingShingle P. Elliott Miller
Aliza S. Gordon
Ying Liu
Tariq Ahmad
Samantha G. Bromfield
Saket Girotra
Carlos D. Davila
Geoffrey Crawford
John Whitney
Nihar R. Desai
Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Without Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
acute myocardial infarction
high‐risk PCI
mechanical circulatory support
title Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Without Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_full Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Without Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_fullStr Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Without Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_full_unstemmed Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Without Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_short Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Without Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
title_sort mechanical circulatory support in patients without cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
topic acute myocardial infarction
high‐risk PCI
mechanical circulatory support
url https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.124.037424
work_keys_str_mv AT pelliottmiller mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT alizasgordon mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT yingliu mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT tariqahmad mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT samanthagbromfield mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT saketgirotra mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT carlosddavila mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT geoffreycrawford mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT johnwhitney mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention
AT niharrdesai mechanicalcirculatorysupportinpatientswithoutcardiogenicshockundergoingpercutaneouscoronaryintervention