Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Hemodynamic Support in the USA: A 5 Year Experience

Objectives To compare the utilization and outcomes in patients who had percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed with intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) versus percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) such as Impella and TandemHeart and identify a sub‐group of patient population who may derive the most benefit from the use of PVADs over IABP. Background Despite the lack of clear benefit, the use of PVADs has increased substantially in the last decade when compared to IABP. Methods We performed a cross sectional study including using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Procedures performed with hemodynamic support were identified through appropriate ICD‐9‐CM codes. Results We identified 18,094 PCIs performed with hemodynamic support. IABP was the most commonly utilized hemodynamic support device (93%, n = 16, 803) whereas 6% (n = 1069) were performed with PVADs and 1% (n = 222) utilized both IABP and PVAD. Patients in the PVAD group were older in age and had greater burden of co‐morbidities whereas IABP group had higher percentage of patients with cardiac arrest. On multivariable analysis, the use of PVAD was a significant predictor of reduced mortality (OR 0.55, 0.36–0.83, P = 0.004). This was particularly evident in sub‐group of patients without acute MI or cardiogenic shock. The propensity score matched analysis also showed a significantly lower mortality (9.9% vs 15.1%; OR 0.62, 0.55–0.71, P