Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 21, 2025

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
The Impact of Atrial Fibrillation on In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by
Gupta Sonu1,2, Desai Rupak3,2, Hanna Bishoy1
1Division of Cardiology, Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Insights
Atrial fibrillation (AF) did not increase mortality in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) patients receiving Impella® support. However, AF patients incurred higher healthcare costs and resource utilization.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Critical Care Medicine
Background:
- Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common comorbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS).
- Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), such as Impella®, are frequently used in AMI-CS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI).
- The impact of AF on clinical outcomes in this high-risk population is not fully understood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effect of a concomitant diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) on in-hospital clinical outcomes.
- To compare healthcare resource consumption between patients with and without AF in the context of AMI-CS treated with pVAD support during PCI.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample (2008-2014) database.
- Identification of patients with AMI-CS requiring PCI with pVAD support, stratified by the presence (AF+) or absence (AF-) of AF.
- Propensity-matched cohort analysis to compare in-hospital outcomes and resource utilization.
Main Results:
- A total of 840 propensity-matched patients (420 AF+ vs. 420 AF-) were analyzed. Patients with AF were older.
- All-cause in-hospital mortality rates were similar between groups (40.5% vs. 36.7%, p=0.245).
- The AF+ group experienced higher postprocedural respiratory complications (9.5% vs. 4.8%, p=0.007), increased transfers to other facilities (27.3% vs. 17.8%, p<0.001), longer length of stay (11.9 vs. 9.1 days, p<0.001), and higher hospital charges ($308,478 vs. $277,982, p=0.008). In-hospital cardiac arrests were more frequent in the AF- group (32.0% vs. 19.2%, p<0.001).
Conclusions:
- In patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI with pVAD support, AF is not associated with increased in-hospital mortality.
- Patients with AF demonstrate significantly greater healthcare resource consumption, including longer hospital stays and higher charges.
- These findings highlight the importance of managing AF in AMI-CS patients to potentially mitigate resource utilization.
Background:
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) requiring percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD-Impella®) support during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). We evaluated the effects of a coexistent diagnosis of AF on clinical outcomes in patients with AMI-CS undergoing PCI with pVAD support.
Methods:
The National Inpatient Sample (2008-2014) was queried to identify patients with AMICS requiring PCI with pVAD support and had a concomitant diagnosis of AF. Propensity-matched cohorts (AF+ vs AF-) were compared for in-hospital outcomes.
Results:
A total of 840 patients with AMICS requiring PCI with pVAD support (420 AF+ vs 420 AF-) were identified in the matched cohort. Patients with AF were older (mean 69.7±12.0 vs 67.9±11.3 yrs, p=0.030). All-cause in-hospital mortality rates between the two groups were similar (40.5% vs 36.7%, p=0.245); however, higher postprocedural respiratory complications (9.5% vs 4.8%, p=0.007) were seen in AF+ group. In-hospital cardiac arrests were more frequent in the AF- group (32.0% vs 19.2%, p<0.001). We examined the length of stay (LOS), transfer to other facilities, and hospital charges as metrics of health care resource consumption and found that the AF+ cohort experienced fewer routine discharges (13.1% vs 30.2%), more frequent transfers to other facilities including skilled nursing facilities or intermediate care facilities (27.3% vs 17.8%; p<0.001), more frequently required the use of home health care (14.3% vs 7.1%; p<0.001). The mean LOS (11.9±10.1 vs 9.11±6.8, p<0.001) and hospital charges ($308,478 vs $277,982, p=0.008) were higher in the AF+ group.
Conclusions:
In patients suffering AMICS requiring PCI and pVAD support, a coexistent diagnosis of AF was not associated with an increase in all-cause in-hospital mortality as compared to patients without AF. However, healthcare resource consumption as assessed by various metrics was consistently greater in the AF+ group.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management
Disturbances in Heart Rhythm
Arrhythmias are categorized by their speed, rhythm, and origin. A slow heart...
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care

