Display options
Share it on

World J Cardiol. 2016 Jan 26;8(1):98-111. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v8.i1.98.

Percutaneous assist devices in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: Review, meta-analysis.

World journal of cardiology

Francesco Romeo, Maria Cristina Acconcia, Domenico Sergi, Alessia Romeo, Simona Francioni, Flavia Chiarotti, Quintilio Caretta

Affiliations

  1. Francesco Romeo, Domenico Sergi, Alessia Romeo, Department of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Rome - Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.

PMID: 26839661 PMCID: PMC4728111 DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v8.i1.98

Abstract

AIM: To assess the impact of percutaneous cardiac support in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS: We selected all of the studies published from January 1(st), 1997 to May 15(st), 2015 that compared the following percutaneous mechanical support in patients with CS due to AMI undergoing myocardial revascularization: (1) intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs Medical therapy; (2) percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (PLVADs) vs IABP; (3) complete extracorporeal life support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) plus IABP vs IABP alone; and (4) ECMO plus IABP vs ECMO alone, in patients with AMI and CS undergoing myocardial revascularization. We evaluated the impact of the support devices on primary and secondary endpoints. Primary endpoint was the inhospital mortality due to any cause during the same hospital stay and secondary endpoint late mortality at 6-12 mo of follow-up.

RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and seventy-two studies met the initial screening criteria. After detailed review, only 30 were selected. There were 6 eligible randomized controlled trials and 24 eligible observational studies totaling 15799 patients. We found that the inhospital mortality was: (1) significantly higher with IABP support vs medical therapy (RR = +15%, P = 0.0002); (2) was higher, although not significantly, with PLVADs compared to IABP (RR = +14%, P = 0.21); and (3) significantly lower in patients treated with ECMO plus IABP vs IABP (RR = -44%, P = 0.0008) or ECMO (RR = -20%, P = 0.006) alone. In addition, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that in the comparison of IABP vs medical therapy, the sample size was adequate to demonstrate a significant increase in risk due to IABP.

CONCLUSION: Inhospital mortality was significantly higher with IABP vs medical therapy. PLVADs did not reduce early mortality. ECMO plus IABP significantly reduced inhospital mortality compared to IABP.

Keywords: Cardiogenic shock; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Impella; Intra-aortic balloon pump; Meta-analysis; TandemHeart

References

  1. N Engl J Med. 1999 Aug 26;341(9):625-34 - PubMed
  2. N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 22;342(25):1887-92 - PubMed
  3. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Sep;36(3 Suppl A):1123-9 - PubMed
  4. BMJ. 2001 Apr 14;322(7291):879-80 - PubMed
  5. Am Heart J. 2001 Jun;141(6):933-9 - PubMed
  6. Am Heart J. 2003 Nov;146(5):804-10 - PubMed
  7. Eur Heart J. 2005 Jul;26(13):1276-83 - PubMed
  8. Am Heart J. 2006 Sep;152(3):469.e1-8 - PubMed
  9. JAMA. 2007 Apr 18;297(15):1657-66 - PubMed
  10. Am J Cardiol. 2007 May 1;99(9):1201-2 - PubMed
  11. Am Heart J. 2007 Dec;154(6):1184-90 - PubMed
  12. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Nov 4;149(9):618-26 - PubMed
  13. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Nov 4;52(19):1584-8 - PubMed
  14. Circulation. 2009 Mar 10;119(9):1211-9 - PubMed
  15. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 Apr;15(2):93-7 - PubMed
  16. Eur Heart J. 2009 Sep;30(17):2102-8 - PubMed
  17. Crit Care Med. 2010 Jan;38(1):152-60 - PubMed
  18. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Dec 30;9:86 - PubMed
  19. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Dec 15;54(25):2430-4 - PubMed
  20. Crit Care Med. 2010 Sep;38(9):1810-7 - PubMed
  21. Cardiology. 2010;117(1):75-80 - PubMed
  22. Crit Care. 2010;14(5):235 - PubMed
  23. EuroIntervention. 2011 Aug;7(4):437-41 - PubMed
  24. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011 Aug;44(4):273-8 - PubMed
  25. Resuscitation. 2012 Aug;83(8):971-5 - PubMed
  26. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;13(2):101-5 - PubMed
  27. J Crit Care. 2012 Oct;27(5):530.e1-11 - PubMed
  28. Circulation. 2012 Sep 25;126(13):1605-13 - PubMed
  29. N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1287-96 - PubMed
  30. Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(20):2535-43 - PubMed
  31. Resuscitation. 2013 May;84(5):609-15 - PubMed
  32. Clin Res Cardiol. 2013 Mar;102(3):223-7 - PubMed
  33. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jan 29;61(4):e78-140 - PubMed
  34. Heart. 2013 Nov;99(21):1614-23 - PubMed
  35. Am Heart J. 2013 May;165(5):679-92 - PubMed
  36. Lancet. 2013 Nov 16;382(9905):1638-45 - PubMed
  37. Eur Heart J. 2014 Jan;35(3):156-67 - PubMed
  38. J Artif Organs. 2014 Mar;17(1):33-41 - PubMed
  39. J Interv Cardiol. 2014 Feb;27(1):1-11 - PubMed
  40. BMC Anesthesiol. 2014 Apr 14;14:27 - PubMed
  41. Eur Heart J. 2014 Oct 1;35(37):2541-619 - PubMed
  42. F1000Prime Rep. 2014 Oct 01;6:91 - PubMed
  43. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2014 Nov;32(4):851-69 - PubMed
  44. Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2014;10(3):175-80 - PubMed
  45. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7(12):1374-85 - PubMed
  46. Clin Med Insights Cardiol. 2015 Feb 03;8(Suppl 1):75-85 - PubMed
  47. Eur Heart J. 2015 May 21;36(20):1223-30 - PubMed
  48. Herz. 2015 Apr;40(2):224-30 - PubMed
  49. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 27;(3):CD007398 - PubMed
  50. Am J Cardiol. 2015 Jun 15;115(12):1649-54 - PubMed
  51. J Cardiol. 2016 Jan;67(1):57-63 - PubMed
  52. J Card Fail. 2015 Jun;21(6):499-518 - PubMed
  53. Cardiol Res. 2012 Apr;3(2):54-66 - PubMed
  54. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997 Sep;30(3):708-15 - PubMed

Publication Types