Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump with In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding among Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

Sanket S. Dhruva, Joseph S. Ross, Bobak J. Mortazavi, Nathan C. Hurley, Harlan M. Krumholz, Jeptha P. Curtis, Alyssa Berkowitz, Frederick A. Masoudi, John C. Messenger, Craig S. Parzynski, Che Ngufor, Saket Girotra, Amit P. Amin, Nilay D. Shah, Nihar R. Desai

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

37 Scopus citations

Abstract

Importance: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Although intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide greater hemodynamic support as compared with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), little is known about clinical outcomes associated with intravascular microaxial LVAD use in clinical practice. Objective: To examine outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. Design, Setting, and Participants: A propensity-matched registry-based retrospective cohort study of patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock undergoing PCI between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, who were included in data from hospitals participating in the CathPCI and the Chest Pain-MI registries, both part of the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Patients receiving an intravascular microaxial LVAD were matched with those receiving IABP on demographics, clinical history, presentation, infarct location, coronary anatomy, and clinical laboratory data, with final follow-up through December 31, 2017. Exposures: Hemodynamic support, categorized as intravascular microaxial LVAD use only, IABP only, other (such as use of a percutaneous extracorporeal ventricular assist system, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or a combination of MCS device use), or medical therapy only. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and in-hospital major bleeding. Results: Among 28304 patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock, the mean (SD) age was 65.0 (12.6) years, 67.0% were men, 81.3% had an ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 43.3% had cardiac arrest. Over the study period among patients with AMI, an intravascular microaxial LVAD was used in 6.2% of patients, and IABP was used in 29.9%. Among 1680 propensity-matched pairs, there was a significantly higher risk of in-hospital death associated with use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD (45.0%) vs with an IABP (34.1% [absolute risk difference, 10.9 percentage points {95% CI, 7.6-14.2}; P <.001) and also higher risk of in-hospital major bleeding (intravascular microaxial LVAD [31.3%] vs IABP [16.0%]; absolute risk difference, 15.4 percentage points [95% CI, 12.5-18.2]; P <.001). These associations were consistent regardless of whether patients received a device before or after initiation of PCI. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing PCI for AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock from 2015 to 2017, use of an intravascular microaxial LVAD compared with IABP was associated with higher adjusted risk of in-hospital death and major bleeding complications, although study interpretation is limited by the observational design. Further research may be needed to understand optimal device choice for these patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)734-745
Number of pages12
JournalJAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume323
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 25 2020

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump with In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding among Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this