Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in US and non-US centres: results of the Benchmark® Registry

Aims To examine differences in patient characteristics and outcomes in 19 636 patients enrolled in the USA and 3027 patients enrolled in other countries undergoing intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation. Methods and results Indications for IABP use; a larger percentage of US patients were identified as ‘early support and stabilization for angiography or angioplasty’ (21.1% US vs 11.8% non-US), and ‘pre-operative support for high-risk CABG’ (15.9% vs 6.6%). A smaller percentage of US patients vs non-US patients were identified as ‘weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass’ (14.3% vs 28.2%), and ‘refractory ventricular failure’ (6.2% vs 9.8%). One out of five patients in both groups was listed as ‘cardiogenic shock’ (18.9% US vs 20.2% non-US). All cause, risk-adjusted, in-hospital mortality (20.1% vs 28.7%; P <0.001), and mortality with IABP in place (10.8% vs 18.0%; P <0.001) were lower at US vs non-US sites. In both US and non-US institutions, IABP associated complication rates, such as IABP-related mortality (0.05% vs 0.07%), major limb ischaemia (0.9% vs 0.8%), and severe bleeding (0.9% vs 0.8%), were low. Conclusions IABP counterpulsation is deployed at an earlier clinical stage in US patients. Mortality rates are higher for non-US patients, particularly for patients with non-surgery cardiac interventions, even after adjusting for risk factors. Complication rates were low. Physicians should therefore not be reluctant to use IABP in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac procedures.