Jingwei Duan1, Yuanchao Shi1, Gongming Luo1, Yu Peng2, Baomin Duan3, Zheng Zhang2. 1. The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China. 2. Department of Cardiology, Heart Centre, Lanzhou, Gansu, China. 3. Emergency Department, Kaifeng Centre Hospital, Kaifeng, Henan, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With more advanced mechanical hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) or high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HS-PCI), the morality rate is now significantly lower than before. While previous studies showed that intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) did not reduce the risk of mortality in patients with CS compared to conservative treatment, the efficacy in other mechanical circulatory support (MCS) trials was inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this network meta-analysis to assess the short-term efficacy and safety of different intervention measures for patients with CS or who underwent HS-PCI. METHODS: Four online databases were searched. From the initial 1,550 articles, we screened 38 studies (an extra 14 studies from references) into this analysis, including a total of 11,270 patients from five interventions (pharmacotherapy, IABP, pMCS, ECMO alone, and ECMO+IABP). RESULT: The short-term efficacy was determined by 30-day or in-hospital mortality. ECMO+IABP significantly reduced mortality compared with pMCS and ECMO alone (OR = 1.85, 95% CrI [1.03-3.26]; OR = 1.89, 95% CrI [1.19-3.01], respectively). ECMO+IABP did not show reduced mortality when compared with pharmacotherapy and IABP (OR = 1.73, 95% CrI [0.97-3.82]; OR = 1.67, 95% CrI [0.98-2.89], respectively). The rank probability, however, supported that ECMO+IABP might be a more suitable intervention in improving mortality for patients with CS or who underwent HS-PCI. Regarding bleeding, compared with other invasive intervention measures, IABP showed a trend of reduced bleeding (with pMCS OR = 3.86, 95% CrI [1.53-10.66]; with ECMO alone OR = 3.74, 95% CrI [1.13-13.78]; with ECMO+IABP OR = 4.80, 95% CrI [1.61-18.53]). No difference was found in stroke, myocardial infarction, limb ischemia, and hemolysis among the invasive therapies evaluated. CONCLUSION: Following this analysis, ECMO+IABP might be a more suitable intervention measure in improving short-term mortality for patients with CS and who underwent HS-PCI. However, the result was limited by the lack of sufficient direct comparisons and evidence from randomized controlled trials. Moreover, bleeding and other device-related complications should be considered in clinical applications.
BACKGROUND: With more advanced mechanical hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) or high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HS-PCI), the morality rate is now significantly lower than before. While previous studies showed that intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) did not reduce the risk of mortality in patients with CS compared to conservative treatment, the efficacy in other mechanical circulatory support (MCS) trials was inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this network meta-analysis to assess the short-term efficacy and safety of different intervention measures for patients with CS or who underwent HS-PCI. METHODS: Four online databases were searched. From the initial 1,550 articles, we screened 38 studies (an extra 14 studies from references) into this analysis, including a total of 11,270 patients from five interventions (pharmacotherapy, IABP, pMCS, ECMO alone, and ECMO+IABP). RESULT: The short-term efficacy was determined by 30-day or in-hospital mortality. ECMO+IABP significantly reduced mortality compared with pMCS and ECMO alone (OR = 1.85, 95% CrI [1.03-3.26]; OR = 1.89, 95% CrI [1.19-3.01], respectively). ECMO+IABP did not show reduced mortality when compared with pharmacotherapy and IABP (OR = 1.73, 95% CrI [0.97-3.82]; OR = 1.67, 95% CrI [0.98-2.89], respectively). The rank probability, however, supported that ECMO+IABP might be a more suitable intervention in improving mortality for patients with CS or who underwent HS-PCI. Regarding bleeding, compared with other invasive intervention measures, IABP showed a trend of reduced bleeding (with pMCS OR = 3.86, 95% CrI [1.53-10.66]; with ECMO alone OR = 3.74, 95% CrI [1.13-13.78]; with ECMO+IABP OR = 4.80, 95% CrI [1.61-18.53]). No difference was found in stroke, myocardial infarction, limb ischemia, and hemolysis among the invasive therapies evaluated. CONCLUSION: Following this analysis, ECMO+IABP might be a more suitable intervention measure in improving short-term mortality for patients with CS and who underwent HS-PCI. However, the result was limited by the lack of sufficient direct comparisons and evidence from randomized controlled trials. Moreover, bleeding and other device-related complications should be considered in clinical applications.