Abstract
Objective
Impella 2.5 has been shown to reduce major adverse events for patients undergoing elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. We performed a single-center retrospective study to compare the costs and resource use of Impella 2.5 and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support.
Methods
All high-risk patients who received Impella 2.5 (n = 35) and IABP (n = 295) support from December 2008 to July 2011 were included. Propensity score matching identified a balanced 1:1 matched cohort (35 Impella vs 35 IABP) based on indications for implantation, preimplantation hemodynamics, and age. Diagnostic, procedural, financial, and resource use data were collected.
Results
As compared with IABP, Impella offered a more predictable course of treatment/resource consumption and was not associated with any extreme cost outliers (17.1% vs 0.0%, respectively; P = 0.025). The mean admission and 90-day episode of care total costs for Impella were 5.5% ($67,681 vs $71,608, P = 0.79) and 4.2% ($70,680 vs $73,476, P = 0.85) lesser than that for IABP, respectively. Although not statistically significant, Impella patients had a trend toward lower rehospitalization rates (11.4% vs 20%), lesser mean index length of hospital stay (11.2 vs 13.7), and 90-day (11.7 vs 14.2) episode of care length of hospital stay.
Conclusions
Impella support was associated with consistent course of treatment/resource consumption with significantly fewer 90-day extreme cost outliers than was IABP. The lower index and 90-day follow-up cost trends observed for Impella were driven by shorter length of hospital stay and fewer rehospitalizations. As providers strive to improve quality of care by reducing variability, these findings have implications for the development of hemodynamic support algorithms.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.