Trends in the Use of Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support in the United States – An Analysis of the 2012 – 2015 National Inpatient Sample

References

• Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:625–634. doi:10.1056/NEJM199908263410901.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werdan K, Gielen S, Ebelt H, Hochman JS. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2014;35:156–167. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis GS, Bartos JA, Adatya S. Inotropes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2069–2078. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.01.016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strom JB, Zhao Y, Shen C, et al. National trends, predictors of use, and in-hospital outcomes in mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. EuroIntervention. 2018;13:e2152–e2159. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00947.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khera R, Cram P, Lu X, et al. Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: analysis of national inpatient sample data, 2007 through 2012. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:941–950. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandhu A, McCoy LA, Negi SI, et al. Use of mechanical circulatory support in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Circulation. 2015;132:1243–1251. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014451.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shah M, Patnaik S, Patel B, et al. Trends in mechanical circulatory support use and hospital mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-infarction related cardiogenic shock in the United States. Clin Res Cardiol. 2018;107:287–303. doi:10.1007/s00392-017-1182-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann F-J, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1287–1296. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1208410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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;30:459–468. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:278–287. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Seyfarth M, Henriques JP. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump for treating cardiogenic shock: meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:358–360. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2017;2018(39):119–177.
   Google Scholar
• FDA warning letter to Abiomed. 2011. [Archived] https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170112193521/http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2011/ucm260341.htm. Accessed Aug 8, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• HCUP National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2012. Agency for healthcare research and quality, Rockville, MD. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp Accessed Aug 9, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Kolte D, Khera S, Sardar MR, et al. Thirty-day readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States: insights from the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e004472. doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goel K, Gupta T, Kolte D, et al. Outcomes and temporal trends of inpatient percutaneous coronary intervention at centers with and without on-site cardiac surgery in the United States. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:25–33. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.4188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow WS, et al. Trends in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3:e000590. doi:10.1161/JAHA.114.000844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khera R, Krumholz HM. With great power comes great responsibility: big data research from the national inpatient sample. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10:e003846. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.117.003846.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den Uil CA, Akin S, Jewbali LS, et al. Short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in refractory cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:14–25. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezx088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borisenko O, Wylie G, Payne J, et al. Thoratec CentriMag for temporary treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock or severe cardiopulmonary insufficiency: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Asaio J. 2014;60:487–497. doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000000117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS, Idelchik GM, Loyalka P. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:688–696. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.08.613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, et al. Randomized comparison of intraaortic balloon support versus a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1276–1283. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, O’neill WW. 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;152:469.e1–469.e8. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2006.05.031.
   Web of Science ®Google 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;52:1584–1588. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Impella CP versus intra-aortic balloon pump support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The IMPRESS in Severe Shock trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:278–287. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.11.026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3523–3531. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, et al. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation. 2019;139:1249–1258. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele H, Ohman EM, de Waha-Thiele S, Zeymer U, Desch S. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update. Eur Heart J. 2019. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wernly B, Seelmaier C, Leistner D, et al. Mechanical circulatory support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump or medical treatment in cardiogenic shock—a critical appraisal of current data. Clin Res Cardiol. 2019. doi:10.1007/s00392-019-01458-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappalardo F, Ajello S, Greco M, et al. Contemporary applications of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation for cardiogenic shock: a “real world” experience. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10:2125–2134. doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.04.20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widimsky P. Mechanical circulatory support: harm without benefit? Fascinated by devices, cardiologists may lose common sense. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3535–3537. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx405.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrow DA. The changing face of cardiogenic shock: a challenge in cardiac critical care. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:1792–1794. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellumkonda L, Gul B, Masri SC. Evolving concepts in diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122:1104–1110. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.05.040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;94:29–37. doi:10.1002/ccd.28329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136:e232–e268. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.027612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar