Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Hemodynamic Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock and Coexistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Propensity-Matched Analysis'

Background: Patients suffering an acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) may experience clinical deterioration with concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF). Recent data suggest that percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) provide superior hemodynamic support over intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in AMICS. In patients with AF+AMICS, however, outcomes data comparing these two devices remain limited. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample datasets (2008–2014) and a propensity-score matched analysis, we compared the outcomes of AMICS+AF hospitalized patients undergoing PCI with pVAD vs. IABP support. Results: A total of 12,842 AMICS+AF patients were identified (pVAD=468, IABP=12,374). The matched groups (pVAD=443, IABP=443) were comparable in terms of mean age (70.3 ± 12.0 vs. 70.4 ± 11.0yrs, p = 0.92). The utilization of pVAD was higher in whites but lower in Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries as compared to IABP. The pVAD group demonstrated higher rates of obesity (13.6% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.006) and dyslipidemia (48.4% vs. 41.8%, p = 0.05). There was no difference in the in-hospital mortality (40.5% vs. 36.8%, p = 0.25); however, pVAD group had a lower incidence of post-procedural MI and higher incidences of stroke (7.8% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.03), hemorrhage (5.6% vs. 2.3%, p = 0.01), discharges to home health care (13.5% vs. 10.1%, p<0.001) and to other facilities (29.1% vs. 24.9%, p<0.001) as compared to IABP group. There was no difference between the groups in terms of mean length of stay or hospital charges. Conclusions: All-cause inpatient mortality was similar in AMICS+AF patients undergoing PCI who were treated with either pVAD or IABP. The pVAD group, however, experienced more complications while consuming greater healthcare resources.