ArticleThe Annals of thoracic surgery2020
Intraaortic Balloon Pump vs Peripheral Ventricular Assist Device Use in the United States.
Article in The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Databases and registries recording the usage of cardiovascular implantable medical devices: A rapid review of the literature.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to characterize practical use trends and outcomes for intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pVAD) use in cardiogenic shock at a national level.
methodsAn analysis of all adult patients admitted nonelectively for cardiogenic shock from January 2008 through December 2017 was performed using the National Inpatient Sample. Trends of inpatient IABP and pVAD use were analyzed using survey-weighted estimates and the modified Cochran-Armitage test for significance. Multivariable regression models and inverse probability of treatment weights were used to perform risk-adjusted analyses of pVAD mortality, a composite of adverse events (AE), and resource use, with IABP as reference.
resultsOf an estimated 774,310 patients admitted with cardiogenic shock, 143,051 received a device: IABP, 127,792 (16.5%); or pVAD, 15,259 (2.0%). IABP use decreased (23.8% to 12.7%; P for trend <.001), whereas pVAD implantation increased significantly during the study period (0.2% to 4.5%; P for trend <.001). Inverse probability of treatment weights demonstrated significantly higher odds of mortality with pVAD (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.7 to 2.2), but not AE (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.27), compared with IABP. After risk adjustment, pVAD use was associated with an additional $15,202 (P < .001) in cost for survivors and $29,643 for nonsurvivors (P < .001).
conclusionsOver the study period, the rate of pVAD use for cardiogenic shock significantly increased. Compared with IABP, pVAD use was associated with increased mortality, higher costs, and several AEs. Multi-institutional clinical trials with rigorous inclusion criteria are warranted to evaluate the clinical utility of pVADs in the modern era.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.