American heart journal · 2021
Sociodemographic differences in utilization and outcomes for temporary cardiovascular mechanical support in the setting of cardiogenic shock.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thangam Manoj, Luke Alina A, Johnson Daniel Y, Amin Amit P, Lasala John, Huang Kristine, Joynt Maddox Karen E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are increasingly used in cardiogenic shock, but whether sociodemographic differences by sex, race and/or ethnicity, insurance status, and neighborhood poverty exist in the utilization of these devices is unknown.
METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study using the National Inpatient Sample for 2012-2017. Logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of use of temporary MCS devices and for in-hospital mortality, clustering by hospital-year.
RESULTS: Our study population included 109,327 admissions for cardiogenic shock. Overall, 14.3% of admissions received an intra-aortic balloon pump, 4.2% a percutaneous ventricular assist device, and 1.8% extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO). After adjusting for age, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics, use of temporary MCS was lower in women compared to men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76, P < .001), Black patients compared to white ones (aOR = 0.73, P < .001), those insured by Medicare (aOR = 0.75, P < .001), Medicaid (aOR = 0.74, P < .001), or uninsured (aOR = 0.90, P = .015) compared to privately insured, and those in the lowest income neighborhoods (aOR = 0.94, P = .003) versus other neighborhoods. Women, admissions covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or uninsured, and those from low-income neighborhoods also had higher mortality rates even after adjustment for MCS implantation.
CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the use of temporary MCS in the setting of cardiogenic shock among specific populations within the United States. The growing use of MCS for treating cardiogenic shock highlights the need to better understand its impact on outcomes.
METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study using the National Inpatient Sample for 2012-2017. Logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of use of temporary MCS devices and for in-hospital mortality, clustering by hospital-year.
RESULTS: Our study population included 109,327 admissions for cardiogenic shock. Overall, 14.3% of admissions received an intra-aortic balloon pump, 4.2% a percutaneous ventricular assist device, and 1.8% extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO). After adjusting for age, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics, use of temporary MCS was lower in women compared to men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76, P < .001), Black patients compared to white ones (aOR = 0.73, P < .001), those insured by Medicare (aOR = 0.75, P < .001), Medicaid (aOR = 0.74, P < .001), or uninsured (aOR = 0.90, P = .015) compared to privately insured, and those in the lowest income neighborhoods (aOR = 0.94, P = .003) versus other neighborhoods. Women, admissions covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or uninsured, and those from low-income neighborhoods also had higher mortality rates even after adjustment for MCS implantation.
CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the use of temporary MCS in the setting of cardiogenic shock among specific populations within the United States. The growing use of MCS for treating cardiogenic shock highlights the need to better understand its impact on outcomes.