Diffusion of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in US Markets.

Bjarnason TA, Mentias A, Panaich S, Vaughan Sarrazin M, Gao Y, Desai M, Pandey A, Dhruva SS, Desai NR, Girotra S. Diffusion of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in US Markets. Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions. 2022 Aug 1; 15(8):e011778.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

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; 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.