A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Combined Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock
Bing Wei Thaddeus Soh, Carlos Sebastian Gracias, Afshan Dean, Jathinder Kumar, Solomon Asgedom, Sajjad Matiullah, Patrick Owens
{"title":"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Combined Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock","authors":"Bing Wei Thaddeus Soh, Carlos Sebastian Gracias, Afshan Dean, Jathinder Kumar, Solomon Asgedom, Sajjad Matiullah, Patrick Owens","doi":"10.1002/ccd.31369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is a severe complication associated with exceedingly high mortality rates. While mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has emerged as a potential intervention, the evidence base for independent MCS use remains weak. In contrast, systematic reviews of observational studies have revealed significant mortality reduction when a combination of MCS was used: VA-ECMO in conjunction with a left ventricular (LV) unloading device (Impella or IABP). The ongoing dilemma concerning the selection between two LV unloading devices (VA-ECMO + Impella vs. VA-ECMO + IABP) warrants further investigation and clarification.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the short-term efficacy and safety of VA-ECMO + Impella versus VA-ECMO + IABP in treatment of AMICS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic search was performed on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting the short-term (30-day/inpatient) mortality and complications of adult patients with AMICS treated with VA-ECMO + Impella and VA-ECMO + IABP were included. Subgroup analysis was performed including studies with ACS predominant CS (CS etiology 100% by AMI).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Four observational studies with 14,247 patients were included. There was no significant difference in mortality between VA-ECMO + Impella and VA-ECMO + IABP (56.5% vs. 66.5%; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79−1.02; <i>p</i> = 0.09). However, VA-ECMO + Impella was associated with significantly lower mortality in patients with ACS predominant CS (53.2% vs. 67.7%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62−0.85; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). VA-ECMO + Impella was concomitantly associated with a significantly higher risk of complications.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>When comparing LV unloading devices in patients with AMICS requiring a combination of MCS, VA-ECMO + Impella was superior in mortality reduction only in the cohort where 100% of CS was caused by AMI.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":9650,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","volume":"105 3","pages":"650-661"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ccd.31369","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) is a severe complication associated with exceedingly high mortality rates. While mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has emerged as a potential intervention, the evidence base for independent MCS use remains weak. In contrast, systematic reviews of observational studies have revealed significant mortality reduction when a combination of MCS was used: VA-ECMO in conjunction with a left ventricular (LV) unloading device (Impella or IABP). The ongoing dilemma concerning the selection between two LV unloading devices (VA-ECMO + Impella vs. VA-ECMO + IABP) warrants further investigation and clarification.
Aim
This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the short-term efficacy and safety of VA-ECMO + Impella versus VA-ECMO + IABP in treatment of AMICS.
Methods
A systematic search was performed on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting the short-term (30-day/inpatient) mortality and complications of adult patients with AMICS treated with VA-ECMO + Impella and VA-ECMO + IABP were included. Subgroup analysis was performed including studies with ACS predominant CS (CS etiology 100% by AMI).
Results
Four observational studies with 14,247 patients were included. There was no significant difference in mortality between VA-ECMO + Impella and VA-ECMO + IABP (56.5% vs. 66.5%; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79−1.02; p = 0.09). However, VA-ECMO + Impella was associated with significantly lower mortality in patients with ACS predominant CS (53.2% vs. 67.7%; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62−0.85; p < 0.0001). VA-ECMO + Impella was concomitantly associated with a significantly higher risk of complications.
Conclusions
When comparing LV unloading devices in patients with AMICS requiring a combination of MCS, VA-ECMO + Impella was superior in mortality reduction only in the cohort where 100% of CS was caused by AMI.
期刊介绍:
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions is an international journal covering the broad field of cardiovascular diseases. Subject material includes basic and clinical information that is derived from or related to invasive and interventional coronary or peripheral vascular techniques. The journal focuses on material that will be of immediate practical value to physicians providing patient care in the clinical laboratory setting. To accomplish this, the journal publishes Preliminary Reports and Work In Progress articles that complement the traditional Original Studies, Case Reports, and Comprehensive Reviews. Perspective and insight concerning controversial subjects and evolving technologies are provided regularly through Editorial Commentaries furnished by members of the Editorial Board and other experts. Articles are subject to double-blind peer review and complete editorial evaluation prior to any decision regarding acceptability.