Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 15, 2026
Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: analysis of national inpatient sample data, 2007
Rohan Khera1, Peter Cram2, Xin Lu3
1Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City.
Importance:
Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) provide robust hemodynamic support compared with intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs), but clinical use patterns are unknown.
Objective:
To examine contemporary patterns in PVAD use in the United States and compare them with use of IABPs.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
Retrospective study of adults older than 18 years who received a PVAD or IABP while hospitalized in the United States (2007-2012).
Main Outcomes And Measures:
Temporal trends in utilization, patient and hospital characteristics, in-hospital mortality, and cost of PVAD use compared with IABP.
Results:
During 2007 through 2012, utilization of PVADs increased 30-fold (4.6 per million discharges in 2007 to 138 per million discharges in 2012; P for trend < .001) while utilization of IABPs decreased from 1738 per million discharges in 2008 to 1608 per million discharges in 2012 (P for trend = .02). In 2007, an estimated 72 hospitals used PVADs, increasing to 477 in 2011 (P for trend < .001). The number of hospitals with an annual volume of 10 or more PVAD procedures per year increased from 0 in 2007 to 102 in 2011 (21.4% of PVAD-using hospitals; P for trend < .001). Among PVAD recipients, 67.3% had a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock or acute myocardial infarction (AMI). There was a temporal increase in the use of PVADs in older patients and patients with AMI, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease (P for trend < .001 for all). Overall, mortality in PVAD recipients was 28.8%, and mean (SE) hospitalization cost was $85,580 ($4165); both were significantly higher in PVAD recipients with cardiogenic shock (mortality, 47.5%; mean [SE] cost, $113,695 [$6260]; P < .001 for both). The PVAD recipients were less likely than IABP recipients to have cardiogenic shock (34.3% vs 41.2%; P = .001), AMI (48.0% vs 68.6%; P < .001), and undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery (6.2% vs 43.2%; P < .001), but more likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (70.9% vs 40.4%; P < .001). In propensity-matched analysis, PVADs were associated with higher mortality compared with IABP (odds ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.06-1.43]; P = .007).
Conclusions And Relevance:
There has been a substantial increase in the use of PVADs in recent years with an accompanying decrease in the use of IABPs. Given the high mortality, associated cost, and uncertain evidence for a clear benefit, randomized clinical trials are needed to determine whether use of PVADs leads to improved patient outcomes.
