TY - JOUR
T1 - Mechanical circulatory support versus vasopressors alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
AU - Javaid, Awad I.
AU - Michalek, Joel E.
AU - Gruslova, Aleksandra B.
AU - Hoskins, Serene A.
AU - Ahsan, Chowdhury H.
AU - Feldman, Marc D.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
PY - 2024/1/1
Y1 - 2024/1/1
N2 - Background: Previous studies have compared Impella use to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI who received Impella (percutaneous left ventricular assist device) without vasopressors, IABP without vasopressors, and vasopressors without mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Methods: We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using ICD-10 codes (2015–2018) to identify patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI. We created three propensity-matched cohorts to examine clinical outcomes in patients receiving Impella versus IABP, Impella versus vasopressors without MCS, and IABP versus vasopressors without MCS. Results: Among 17,762 patients, Impella use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital major bleeding (31.4% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.001) and hospital charges (p < 0.001) compared to IABP use, with no benefit in mortality (34.1% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.06). Impella use was associated with significantly higher mortality (42.3% vs. 35.7%; p = 0.02), major bleeding (33.9% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.001), and hospital charges (p < 0.001), when compared to the use of vasopressors without MCS. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between IABP use and the use of vasopressor without MCS. Conclusions: In this analysis of retrospective data of patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, major bleeding, and in-hospital charges when compared to vasopressor therapy without MCS. When compared to IABP use, Impella was associated with no mortality benefit, along with higher major bleeding events and in-hospital charges. A vasopressor-only strategy suggested no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to IABP. This study uses the NIS for the first time to highlight outcomes in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI when treated with vasopressor support without MCS, compared to Impella and IABP use.
AB - Background: Previous studies have compared Impella use to intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI who received Impella (percutaneous left ventricular assist device) without vasopressors, IABP without vasopressors, and vasopressors without mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Methods: We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using ICD-10 codes (2015–2018) to identify patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI. We created three propensity-matched cohorts to examine clinical outcomes in patients receiving Impella versus IABP, Impella versus vasopressors without MCS, and IABP versus vasopressors without MCS. Results: Among 17,762 patients, Impella use was associated with significantly higher in-hospital major bleeding (31.4% vs. 13.6%; p < 0.001) and hospital charges (p < 0.001) compared to IABP use, with no benefit in mortality (34.1% vs. 26.9%; p = 0.06). Impella use was associated with significantly higher mortality (42.3% vs. 35.7%; p = 0.02), major bleeding (33.9% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.001), and hospital charges (p < 0.001), when compared to the use of vasopressors without MCS. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between IABP use and the use of vasopressor without MCS. Conclusions: In this analysis of retrospective data of patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI, Impella use was associated with higher mortality, major bleeding, and in-hospital charges when compared to vasopressor therapy without MCS. When compared to IABP use, Impella was associated with no mortality benefit, along with higher major bleeding events and in-hospital charges. A vasopressor-only strategy suggested no difference in clinical outcomes when compared to IABP. This study uses the NIS for the first time to highlight outcomes in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI when treated with vasopressor support without MCS, compared to Impella and IABP use.
KW - ACS—acute coronary syndrome
KW - CS—cardiogenic shock
KW - Impella
KW - MCS—mechanical circulatory support
KW - PCI—percutaneous coronary intervention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85177566718&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85177566718&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/ccd.30913
DO - 10.1002/ccd.30913
M3 - Article
C2 - 37997292
AN - SCOPUS:85177566718
SN - 1522-1946
VL - 103
SP - 30
EP - 41
JO - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 1
ER -