A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Combined Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions Pub Date : 2024-12-24 DOI:10.1002/ccd.31369
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,&nbsp;Carlos Sebastian Gracias,&nbsp;Afshan Dean,&nbsp;Jathinder Kumar,&nbsp;Solomon Asgedom,&nbsp;Sajjad Matiullah,&nbsp;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> &lt; 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
联合机械循环支持治疗急性心肌梗死相关心源性休克的疗效和安全性的系统评价和荟萃分析。
背景:急性心肌梗死相关性心源性休克(AMICS)是一种死亡率极高的严重并发症。虽然机械循环支持(MCS)已成为一种潜在的干预措施,但独立使用MCS的证据基础仍然薄弱。相比之下,观察性研究的系统回顾显示,当联合使用MCS时,死亡率显著降低:VA-ECMO与左室(LV)卸载装置(Impella或IABP)联合使用。关于两种LV卸载装置(VA-ECMO + Impella vs. VA-ECMO + IABP)选择的持续困境值得进一步调查和澄清。目的:这是第一个系统回顾和荟萃分析,评估VA-ECMO + Impella与VA-ECMO + IABP治疗AMICS的短期疗效和安全性。方法:系统检索EMBASE、MEDLINE和Cochrane数据库。研究报告了使用VA-ECMO + Impella和VA-ECMO + IABP治疗成年AMICS患者的短期(30天/住院)死亡率和并发症。亚组分析包括ACS为主要CS (CS病因100%为AMI)的研究。结果:纳入4项观察性研究,14247例患者。VA-ECMO + Impella与VA-ECMO + IABP的死亡率无显著差异(56.5% vs 66.5%;或者,0.90;95% ci, 0.79-1.02;p = 0.09)。然而,VA-ECMO + Impella与ACS为主CS患者的死亡率显著降低相关(53.2% vs 67.7%;或者,0.72;95% ci, 0.62-0.85;p结论:当比较需要联合MCS的AMICS患者的LV卸载装置时,VA-ECMO + Impella仅在100% CS由AMI引起的队列中具有更高的死亡率降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
419
审稿时长
2 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Do We Need to Perform Control Angiography in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Tirofiban Infusion? First Application of Combined Cutting Balloon and Rotational Atherectomy and Intravascular Lithotripsy in Old Degenerated Saphenous Venous Graft. Optimizing Stent Placement in Ostial Coronary Lesions With the Floating Balloon Technique: The OSTIAL (Optimizing Stent In Aorto-Ostial Lesion) Pivotal Study. Overcoming Uncrossable Calcified RCA Using Orbital Atherectomy After Failure of Rotational Atherectomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1