• Jordan B Strom, Yuansong Zhao, Changyu Shen, Mabel Chung, Duane S Pinto, Jeffrey J Popma, David J Cohen, and Robert W Yeh.
• Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA (J.B.S., Y.Z., C.S., M.C., D.S.P., J.J.P., R.W.Y.).
• Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jan 1; 12 (1): e007270.

BackgroundLimited knowledge exists on inter-hospital variation in the utilization of short-term, nondurable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS).Methods And ResultsHospitalizations for MI with CS in 2014 in a nationally representative all-payer database were included. The proportion of hospitalizations for MI with CS using MCS (MCS ratio) and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. Hospital characteristics and outcomes were compared across quartiles of MCS usage. Of 1813 hospitals evaluated, 1440 (79.4%) performed ≥10 percutaneous coronary interventions annually. Of these, 1064 (73.9%) had at least one code for MCS. Forty-one percent of hospitals did not use MCS. The median (interquartile range) proportion of MCS use among admissions for MI with CS was 33.3% (0.0%-50.0%). High MCS utilizing hospitals were larger ( P<0.001). Eighty-five percent (2808/3301) of MCS use was intra-aortic balloon pump. There was significant variation in receipt of MCS at different hospitals (median odds ratio of receiving MCS at 2 random hospitals: 1.58; 95% CI, 1.45-1.70). Adjusted in-hospital mortality was not different across quartiles of MCS use (Q4 versus Q1; odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16; P=0.58).ConclusionsWide variation exists in hospital use of MCS for MI with CS, unexplained by patient characteristics. The predominant form of MCS use is intra-aortic balloon pump. Risk-adjusted mortality rates were not different between higher and lower MCS-utilizing hospitals.

44 keywords...

hide…