Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the National Readmission Database
Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the National Readmission Database
Monday, May 20, 2019
Belmont Ballroom 2-3 (The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas)
Background:
Methods
:Using the National Readmission Database from 2010 to 2015, we identified adult patients that underwent pVAD or ECMO placement for CS; we excluded patients that underwent both procedures during the same hospitalization.
Results
:We identified 12,040 admissions for CS treated with mechanical circulatory support; 67.7% (8,148) underwent pVAD and 32.3% (3,892) ECMO placement. Patients that underwent pVAD had a mean age of 63.1 years, 29.2% were female, and 59.5% presented as acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Patients that underwent ECMO were younger (53.7 years), 31.2% were female and 23% presented with ACS. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower for pVAD when compared with ECMO (51.1% vs 58.7%, OR: 0.47, p<0.001). Patients that underwent pVAD had lower vascular complications (31.1% vs 66.0%, OR 0.29, p<0.001), cardiac complications (9.8% vs 20.1%, OR 0.45, p<0.001), acute kidney injury (57.0% vs 71.9%, OR 0.60, p<0.001), and stroke rates (4.1% vs 9.0%, OR 0.47, p<0.001). Length of stay and total hospital costs were lower for pVAD patients. Thirty-day readmission rates were higher for patients that underwent pVAD.
Conclusions
:The use of pVAD in cardiogenic shock was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, hospital complications, length of stay and hospital costs, but higher 30-day readmission when compared to ECMO.