Health economics of percutaneous hemodynamic support in the treatment of high-risk cardiac patients: a systematic appraisal of the literature

References

• Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2013;127:(1):e6-e245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010;121:(7):e46-e215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jencks S, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalization among patient in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 2009;360:(14):1418-1428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whellan DJ, Greiner MA, Schulman KA, Curtis LH. Costs of inpatient care among Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure, 2001 to 2004. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010;3:(1):33-40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu W, Mukku VK, Gilani S, et al. Percutaneous hemodynamic support (Impella) in patients with advanced heart failure and/or cardiogenic shock not eligible to PROTECT II trial. Int J Angiol 2013;22:(4):207-212.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:(19):1584-1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DH, et al. The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella registry. J Interv Cardiol 2014;27:(1):1-11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith BP, Anderson MB, Samuels LE, et al. The RECOVER I: a multicenter prospective study of Impella 5.0/LD for postcardiotomy circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;145:(2):548-554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemaire A, Anderson MB, Lee LY, et al. The Impella device for acute mechanical circulatory support in patients in cardiogenic shock. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:(1):133-138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauten A, Engström AE, Jung C, et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circ Heart Fail 2013;6:(1):23-30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, O’Neill WW; TandemHeart Investigators Group. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 2006;152:(3):e1-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, et al. Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2005;26:(13):1276-1283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS, et al. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:(6):688-696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awad HH, Anderson FA Jr, Gore JM, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes: insights from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events. Am Heart J 2012;163:(6):963-971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, et al. Thirty-year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population-based perspective. Circulation 2009;119:(9):1211-1219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ, et al. Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA 2005;294:(4):448-454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, et al. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction – Etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOC K trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:(3 Suppl A):1063-1070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Health Research Institute Report. US Opportunities in Acute Cardiac Assist. Report # 0514-1-US-1209-204. December 2009
   Google Scholar
• Romeo F, Acconcia MC, Sergi D, et al. The outcome of intra-aortic balloon pump support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock according to the type of revascularization: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Am Heart J 2013;165:(5):679-692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahekar A, Singh M, Singh S, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes using intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk acute myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 2012;17:(1):44-56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curtis JP, Rathore SS, Wang Y, et al. Use and effectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pumps among patients undergoing high risk percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012;5:(1):21-30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unverzagt S, Machemer MT, Solms A, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;6:(7):CD007398
   Google Scholar
• Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Vis MM, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? Eur Heart J 2009;30(4):459-468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassese S, de Waha A, Ndrepepa G, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction without cardiogenic shock. A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 2012;164(1):58-65.e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel MR, Smalling RW, Thiele H, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and infarct size in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction without shock. The CRISP AMI randomized trial. JAMA 2011;306(12):1329-1337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perera D, Stables R, Thomas M, et al. Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010;304(8):867-874.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bisdas T, Beutel G, Warnecke G, et al. Vascular complications in patients undergoing femoral cannulation for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Ann Thorac Surg 2011;92(2):626-631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rastan AJ, Dege A, Mohr M, et al. Early and late outcomes of 517 consecutive adult patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;139(2):302-311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasin T, Marmor Y, Kremers W, et al. Readmissions after implantation of axial flow left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61(2):153-163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan N, Arnaoutakis GJ, George TJ, et al. The spectrum of complications following left ventricular assist device placement. J Card Surg 2012;27(5):630-638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregory D, Scotti DJ, de Lissovoy G, et al. A value-based analysis of hemodynamic support strategies for high-risk heart failure patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Health Drug Benefits 2013;6(2):88-99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maini B, Gregory D, Scotti DJ, Buyantseva L. Percutaneous cardiac assist devices compared with surgical hemodynamic support alternatives: cost-effectiveness in the emergent setting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013. [Epub ahead of print]
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roos JB, Doshi SN, Konorza T, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a new percutaneous ventricular assist device for high-risk PCI patients: mid-stage evaluation from the European perspective. J Med Econ 2013;16(3):1-10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moreno SG, Novielli N, Cooper NJ. Cost-effectiveness of the implantable HeartMate II left ventricular assist device for patients awaiting heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2012;31(5):450-458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers JG, Bostic RR, Tong KB, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Circ Heart Fail 2012;5(1):10-16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slaughter MS, Bostic R, Tong K, et al. Temporal changes in hospital costs for left ventricular assist device implantation. J Card Surg 2011;26(5):535-541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engström AE, Cocchieri R, Driessen AH, et al. The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: the Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience. Crit Care Med 2011;39(9):2072-2079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maini B, Naisu SS, Mulukutla S, et al. Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the USpella registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012;80(5):717-725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation 2012;126(14):1717-1727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon SR, Henriques JP, Mauri L, et al. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (the PROTECT I Trial): initial U.S. experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2009;2(2):91-96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjauw KD, Konorza T, Erbel R, et al. Supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device. The Europella registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54(25):2430-2434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill PG, Dinh H, Bailey S, et al. PLVAD support during catheter ablation of scar mediate VT is associated with shorter hospital length of stay. Eur Heart J 2013;34(Suppl 1): doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht310.P5594
   Google Scholar
• Miller MA, Dukkipati SR, Chinitz JS, et al. Percutaneous hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 during scar-related ventricular tachycardia ablation (PERMIT 1). Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2013;6(1):151-159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller MA, Dukkipati SR, Mittnacht AJ, et al. Activation and entrainment mapping of hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia using a percutaneous left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58(13):1363-1371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papaioannou TG, Stefanadis C. Basic principles of the intraaortic balloon pump and mechanisms affecting its performance. ASAIO J 2005;51(3):296-300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng JM, den Uil CA, Hoeks SE, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2009;30(17):2102-2108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomized, open-label trial. Lancet 2013;382(9905):1638-1645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moussa ID, Klein LW, Shah B, et al. Consideration of a new definition of clinically relevant myocardial infarction after coronary revascularization: an expert consensus document from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014;83(1):27-36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dangas GD, Kini AS, Sharma SK, et al. Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial. Am J Cardiol 2014;113(2):222-228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregory D, Scotti DJ. A budget impact model to estimate the cost dynamics of treating high-risk heart failure patients with advanced percutaneous cardiac assist devices: the payer perspective. J Manag Care Med 2013;16(1):61-69.
   Google Scholar
• Cheung A, Danter M, Gregory D. Comparative economic outcomes in cardiogenic shock patients managed with the minimally invasive Impella or extracorporeal life support. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60(17 Suppl B):B110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohns D, Muthusamy P, Davis AT, et al. Economic and operational implications of a standardized approach to hemodynamic support therapy using percutaneous cardiac assist devices. Innovations (Phila) 2014;9(1):38-42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Naidu SS. Novel percutaneous cardiac assist devices. The science of and indications for hemodynamic support. Circulation 2011;123(5):533-543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar