Diffusion of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in US Markets

Background: Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) have been replacing intra-aortic balloon pumps for hemodynamic support during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even though data supporting a benefit for hard clinical end points remain limited. We evaluated diffusion of PVADs across US markets and examined the association of market utilization of PVAD with mortality and cost. Methods: Using the 2013 to 2019 Medicare data, we identified all patients aged ≥65 years who underwent PCI with either a PVAD or intra-aortic balloon pump. We used hospital referral region to define regional health care markets and categorized them in quartiles based on the proportional use of PVADs during PCI. Multilevel models were constructed to determine the association of patient, hospital, and market factors with utilization of PVADs and the association of PVAD utilization with 30-day mortality and cost. Results: A total of 79 176 patients underwent PCI with either intra-aortic balloon pump (47 514 [60.0%]) or PVAD (31 662 [40.0%]). The proportion of PCI procedures with PVAD increased over time (17% in 2013 to 57% in 2019; P for trend, <0.001), such that PVADs overtook intra-aortic balloon pump for hemodynamic support during PCI in 2018. There was a large variation in PVAD utilization across markets (range, 0%–85%), which remained unchanged after adjustment of patient characteristics (median odds ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.91–2.17]). The presence of acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and emergent status was associated with a 45% to 50% lower odds of PVAD use suggesting that PVADs were less likely to be used in the sickest patients. Greater utilization of PVAD at the market level was not associated with lower risk mortality but was associated with higher cost. Conclusions: Although utilization of PVADs for PCI continues to increase, there is large variation in PVAD utilization across markets. Greater market utilization of PVADs was not associated with lower mortality but was associated with higher cost.

[1]  J. Messenger,et al.  Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. , 2020, JAMA.

[2]  J. Spertus,et al.  The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support , 2019, Circulation.

[3]  Michael V. Green,et al.  Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative , 2019, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[4]  S. Blankenberg,et al.  Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Matched-Pair IABP-SHOCK II Trial 30-Day Mortality Analysis , 2019, Circulation.

[5]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  A. Neugut,et al.  Effect of Regional Hospital Competition and Hospital Financial Status on the Use of Robotic-Assisted Surgery. , 2016, JAMA surgery.

[7]  Xin Lu,et al.  Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: analysis of national inpatient sample data, 2007 through 2012. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[8]  B. Hollenbeck,et al.  Managed Care and the Dissemination of Robotic Prostatectomy , 2014, Surgical innovation.

[9]  David M Cutler,et al.  Hospitals, market share, and consolidation. , 2013, JAMA.

[10]  Jill R Horwitz,et al.  Expansion of Invasive Cardiac Services in the United States , 2013, Circulation.

[11]  Nishant R. Shah,et al.  Serum biomarkers in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. , 2013, JACC. Heart failure.

[12]  J. Spertus,et al.  Translating evidence into practice: are we neglecting the neediest? , 2007, Archives of internal medicine.

[13]  H. Quan,et al.  Coding Algorithms for Defining Comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Administrative Data , 2005, Medical care.

[14]  Risto Lehtonen,et al.  Multilevel Statistical Models , 2005 .

[15]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Russell S. Kirby,et al.  The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care , 1998 .

[17]  T. Huynh.  Comparison of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Fibrinolytic Therapy in ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction Bayesian Hierarchical Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies , 2009 .

[18]  Juan Merlo,et al.  Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. , 2005, American journal of epidemiology.