Intra‐aortic balloon pump on in‐hospital outcomes of cardiogenic shock: findings from a nationwide registry, China

AIMS: The real‐world usage of intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) in various cardiogenic shocks (CS) and the association with outcomes are lacking. We aimed to investigate IABP adoption in CS in a nationwide registry in China. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively retrieved data of 30 106 CS patients (age 67.1 ± 14.6 years, 37.6% female patients) in the Hospital Quality Monitoring System registry from 2013 to 2016. Ischaemic heart disease was the leading cause of CS (73.9%). Hypertension, cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, valvular, and congenital heart disease were seen in 36.0%, 7.5%, 2.6%, 7.3%, and 2.4% of the population. IABP was employed in 2320 (7.7%) subjects. The association between IABP usage and primary outcome of in‐hospital mortality and secondary outcomes of expenses and lengths of stay were investigated. The patients with IABP support had similar in‐hospital mortality to those without IABP (39.6% vs. 38.3%, P = 0.226), but longer hospital‐stay [8.0 (2.0–16.0) vs. 6.0 (2.0–13.0) days, P < 0.001] and higher expenses [7.1(4.4–11.1) vs. 2.3 (0.8–5.5) 10 000RMB, P < 0.001]. IABP support was not associated with reduced mortality in the overall CS population in multivariate regression analysis [odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95–1.17], except for subgroups with myocarditis (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.95, P for interaction = 0.010) and those who did not receive the early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75–0.97, P for interaction < 0.001). Similar results were further confirmed in the propensity‐score‐matched population. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide registry of CS patients, IABP was not noted with improved survival but increased healthcare consumption. However, IABP appears protective in those with myocarditis or who failed to receive early PCI.