Impact of mechanical circulatory support on in‐hospital outcomes among patients with ventricular tachycardia requiring ablation

Kenji Hashimoto,Abdul Rahman Akkawi,Mohamad Ghazal,Alexandros Briasoulis,Toshiki Kuno
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14877
2024-10-02
Artificial Organs
Abstract:This study analyzed in‐hospital outcomes of ventricular tachycardia ablation with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) using the National Inpatients Sample data from 2019 to 2020. Of 14 450 patients, 6.5% used MCS, and MCS use was associated with higher mortality (24% vs. 2%) and complications. In patients with cardiogenic shock, MCS also led to higher mortality (32% vs. 8.4%). The findings emphasize the need for careful assessment in MCS use during ventricular tachycardia ablation to improve outcomes. Background Ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation is a high‐risk procedure, particularly due to the potential for hemodynamic instability. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is increasingly utilized to manage these risks. This study investigated the in‐hospital outcomes of VT ablation with MCS use, emphasizing its impact on mortality and procedural complications. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing VT ablation from 2019 to 2020, using the National Inpatient Sample data. Patients aged 18 years and over were included. MCS includes a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and intraaortic balloon pump (IABP). We also conducted a subgroup analysis for patients experiencing cardiogenic shock (CS). The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury (AKI), AKI‐requiring dialysis, any bleeding events, gastrointestinal bleeding, ischemic stroke, heart transplant, and durable LVAD (dLVAD) utilization. Results We included 14 450 patients, of whom 6.5% utilized MCS. The MCS group showed a higher in‐hospital mortality rate than the non‐MCS group (24% vs. 2%, p
engineering, biomedical,transplantation
What problem does this paper attempt to address?