4.5 Article

Intra-aortic balloon pump on in-hospital outcomes of cardiogenic shock: findings from a nationwide registry, China

Journal

ESC HEART FAILURE
Volume 8, Issue 4, Pages 3286-3294

Publisher

WILEY PERIODICALS, INC
DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.13479

Keywords

Intra-aortic balloon pump; Cardiogenic shock; Mortality

Funding

  1. China-World Health Organization Biennial Collaborative Projects 2016-2017

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a nationwide registry of cardiogenic shock patients in China, the use of IABP did not show improved survival but increased healthcare consumption. However, IABP appears to be protective in patients with myocarditis or those who did not receive early PCI treatment.
Aims The real-world usage of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in various cardiogenic shocks (CS) and the association with outcomes are lacking. We aimed to investigate IABP adoption in CS in a nationwide registry in China. Methods and results We retrospectively retrieved data of 30 106 CS patients (age 67.1 +/- 14.6 years, 37.6% female patients) in the Hospital Quality Monitoring System registry from 2013 to 2016. Ischaemic heart disease was the leading cause of CS (73.9%). Hypertension, cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, valvular, and congenital heart disease were seen in 36.0%, 7.5%, 2.6%, 7.3%, and 2.4% of the population. IABP was employed in 2320 (7.7%) subjects. The association between IABP usage and primary outcome of in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes of expenses and lengths of stay were investigated. The patients with IABP support had similar in-hospital mortality to those without IABP (39.6% vs. 38.3%, P = 0.226), but longer hospital-stay [8.0 (2.0-16.0) vs. 6.0 (2.0-13.0) days, P < 0.001] and higher expenses [7.1(4.4-11.1) vs. 2.3 (0.8-5.5) 10 000RMB, P < 0.001]. IABP support was not associated with reduced mortality in the overall CS population in multivariate regression analysis [odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.17], except for subgroups with myocarditis (OR 0.61, 95% Cl 0.39-0.95, P for interaction = 0.010) and those who did not receive the early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.97, P for interaction < 0.001). Similar results were further confirmed in the propensityscore-matched population. Conclusions In this nationwide registry of CS patients, IABP was not noted with improved survival but increased healthcare consumption. However, IABP appears protective in those with myocarditis or who failed to receive early PCI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available