Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 19, 2025

Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Association of Mechanical Circulatory Support and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Procedural Volumes With Outcomes
Kevin Tabibian1, Amulya Vadlakonda1, Troy Coaston1
1Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract:
Despite advancements in cardiogenic shock (CS) management, mortality remains high. While hospital volume has been linked to reduced mortality across myriad complex procedures, the cross-volume effects of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) procedures on CS patients not receiving these interventions remain unexplored. Using the 2016 to 2022 Nationwide Readmissions Database, we analyzed nonelective adult CS admissions at MCS- and CCL-capable hospitals. Hospitals were stratified into quartiles by annual volumes of MCS (intra-aortic balloon pump, percutaneous ventricular assist device, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) and CCL procedures (coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention), with the top quartile classified as high-volume (HVH-MCS or HVHCCL). Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were constructed to evaluate the independent association of high-volume status with mortality, complications, and resource utilization. Among 130,822 CS hospitalizations, 48.2% were treated at HVH-MCS and 46.1% at HVHCCL. Unadjusted mortality was lower at HVH-MCS (24.8% vs 30.7%, p <0.001) and HVHCCL (26.6% vs 29.0%, p <0.001). Following adjustment, HVH-MCS remained associated with reduced mortality (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 0.93), while HVHCCL showed no significant benefit (p = 0.10). HVH-MCS also had lower respiratory (AOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86) and infectious (AOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) complications, but longer hospital stays (β +1.75 days, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.01) and higher costs (+$8,600, 95% CI 7,100 to 10,100). Increasing MCS volume appears independently correlated with improved CS outcomes, highlighting the cross-volume effect of institutional expertise. Contrastingly, CCL volume was not associated with in-hospital mortality, supporting centralization of CS care at high-volume MCS centers.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Cardiac Catheterization II: Right Heart Catheterization
Cardiac Output II: Effect of Stroke Volume on Cardiac Output
Preload
Preload refers to the initial elongation of the cardiac myocytes before contraction and is related to the volume of blood filling the heart at the end of diastole, or end-diastolic volume. The...
Cardiomyopathy VII: Pre and Post Operative Nursing Management
Cardiac Output and Stroke Volume
In an average resting adult male, the typical cardiac...
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care

