Cost-Outcome Variation in Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support: A National Value-of-Care Analysis
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) is increasingly used in critically ill patients, yet its value in relation to cost and outcomes remains unclear. We evaluated national variation in utilization, outcomes, and cost, and introduced a value-of-care framework integrating risk-adjusted outcomes and expenditures.
Methods
We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample to identify non-elective hospitalizations of critically ill patients undergoing intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) placement using ICD-10 codes. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear models were used to estimate expected outcomes and costs. Observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios were calculated, and a value index was derived to compare procedural strategies.
Results
A total of 57,910 weighted hospitalizations were included (IABP 78%, pLVAD 22%). In-hospital mortality exceeded 30% across regions. Significant regional variation was observed, with the West demonstrating the highest costs and the Midwest the lowest (p<0.001). Mean hospital charges were higher for pLVAD compared with IABP ($403,731 vs $320,769). Both strategies achieved outcomes better than expected after risk adjustment (O/E 0.92); however, costs were higher than expected for both, with greater relative cost inflation observed for IABP (O/E 1.41) and higher absolute costs for pLVAD. In value-of-care analysis, IABP was associated with lower cost and comparable outcomes, while pLVAD demonstrated higher cost without proportional outcome improvement.
Conclusion
Substantial variation exists in the cost, outcomes, and value of pMCS strategies. While both IABP and pLVAD achieve favorable risk-adjusted outcomes, pLVAD is associated with higher costs without commensurate clinical benefit.
