Holger Thiele1,2,3, Alexander Jobs2,3, Dagmar M Ouweneel4, Jose P S Henriques4, Melchior Seyfarth5, Steffen Desch2,3, Ingo Eitel2,3, Janine Pöss2,3, Georg Fuernau2,3, Suzanne de Waha2,3. 1. Heart Centre Leipzig, Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 2. University Heart Centre Luebeck, Department of Cardiology, Angiology, and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Luebeck, Germany. 3. German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), partner site Hamburg/Kiel/Luebeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Luebeck, Germany. 4. Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Heart Centre Wuppertal, Department of Cardiology, Arrenberger Straße 20, 42117 Wuppertal, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: Evidence on the impact on clinical outcome of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in cardiogenic shock (CS) is scarce. This collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials thus aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of percutanzeous active MCS vs. control in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized trials comparing percutaneous active MCS to control in patients with CS were identified through searches of medical literature databases. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to analyse the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality and device-related complications including bleeding and leg ischaemia. Mean differences (MD) were calculated for mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac index (CI), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), and arterial lactate. Four trials randomizing 148 patients to either TandemHeart™ or Impella® MCS (n = 77) vs. control (n = 71) were identified. In all four trials intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) served as control. There was no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.44, P = 0.98, I2 = 0%) for active MCS compared with control. Active MCS significantly increased MAP (MD 11.85 mmHg, 95% CI 3.39 to 20.31, P = 0.02, I2 = 32.7%) and decreased arterial lactate (MD - 1.36 mmol/L, 95% CI - 2.52 to - 0.19, I2 = 0%, P = 0.02) at comparable CI (MD 0.32, 95% CI - 0.24 to 0.87, P = 0.14, I2 = 44.1%) and PCWP (MD - 5.59, 95% -15.59 to 4.40, P = 0.14, I2 = 81.1%). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of leg ischaemia (RR 2.64, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.39, P = 0.10, I2 = 0%), whereas the rate of bleeding was significantly increased in MCS compared to IABP (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.04, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Results of this collaborative meta-analysis do not support the unselected use of active MCS in patients with CS complicating AMI. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Evidence on the impact on clinical outcome of active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in cardiogenic shock (CS) is scarce. This collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials thus aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of percutanzeous active MCS vs. control in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized trials comparing percutaneous active MCS to control in patients with CS were identified through searches of medical literature databases. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to analyse the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality and device-related complications including bleeding and leg ischaemia. Mean differences (MD) were calculated for mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac index (CI), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), and arterial lactate. Four trials randomizing 148 patients to either TandemHeart™ or Impella® MCS (n = 77) vs. control (n = 71) were identified. In all four trials intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) served as control. There was no difference in 30-day mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.44, P = 0.98, I2 = 0%) for active MCS compared with control. Active MCS significantly increased MAP (MD 11.85 mmHg, 95% CI 3.39 to 20.31, P = 0.02, I2 = 32.7%) and decreased arterial lactate (MD - 1.36 mmol/L, 95% CI - 2.52 to - 0.19, I2 = 0%, P = 0.02) at comparable CI (MD 0.32, 95% CI - 0.24 to 0.87, P = 0.14, I2 = 44.1%) and PCWP (MD - 5.59, 95% -15.59 to 4.40, P = 0.14, I2 = 81.1%). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of leg ischaemia (RR 2.64, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.39, P = 0.10, I2 = 0%), whereas the rate of bleeding was significantly increased in MCS compared to IABP (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.04, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Results of this collaborative meta-analysis do not support the unselected use of active MCS in patients with CS complicating AMI. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Santanu Guha; S Harikrishnan; Saumitra Ray; Rishi Sethi; S Ramakrishnan; Suvro Banerjee; V K Bahl; K C Goswami; Amal Kumar Banerjee; S Shanmugasundaram; P G Kerkar; Sandeep Seth; Rakesh Yadav; Aditya Kapoor; Ajaykumar U Mahajan; P P Mohanan; Sundeep Mishra; P K Deb; C Narasimhan; A K Pancholia; Ajay Sinha; Akshyaya Pradhan; R Alagesan; Ambuj Roy; Amit Vora; Anita Saxena; Arup Dasbiswas; B C Srinivas; B P Chattopadhyay; B P Singh; J Balachandar; K R Balakrishnan; Brian Pinto; C N Manjunath; Charan P Lanjewar; Dharmendra Jain; Dipak Sarma; G Justin Paul; Geevar A Zachariah; H K Chopra; I B Vijayalakshmi; J A Tharakan; J J Dalal; J P S Sawhney; Jayanta Saha; Johann Christopher; K K Talwar; K Sarat Chandra; K Venugopal; Kajal Ganguly; M S Hiremath; Milind Hot; Mrinal Kanti Das; Neil Bardolui; Niteen V Deshpande; O P Yadava; Prashant Bhardwaj; Pravesh Vishwakarma; Rajeeve Kumar Rajput; Rakesh Gupta; S Somasundaram; S N Routray; S S Iyengar; G Sanjay; Satyendra Tewari; Sengottuvelu G; Soumitra Kumar; Soura Mookerjee; Tiny Nair; Trinath Mishra; U C Samal; U Kaul; V K Chopra; V S Narain; Vimal Raj; Yash Lokhandwala Journal: Indian Heart J Date: 2018-06-08
Authors: Behnam N Tehrani; Alexander G Truesdell; Mitchell A Psotka; Carolyn Rosner; Ramesh Singh; Shashank S Sinha; Abdulla A Damluji; Wayne B Batchelor Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 12.035