Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 18 July 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in European Heart Journal
- Vol. 30 (17), 2102-2108
- https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp292
Abstract
Studies have compared safety and efficacy of percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock. We performed a meta-analysis of controlled trials to evaluate potential benefits of percutaneous LVAD on haemodynamics and 30-day survival. Two independent investigators searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all controlled trials using percutaneous LVAD in patients with cardiogenic shock, where after data were extracted using standardized forms. Weighted mean differences (MDs) were calculated for cardiac index (CI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). Relative risks (RRs) were calculated for 30-day mortality, leg ischaemia, bleeding, and sepsis. In main analysis, trials were combined using inverse-variance random effects approach. Two trials evaluated the TandemHeart and a recent trial used the Impella device. After device implantation, percutaneous LVAD patients had higher CI (MD 0.35 L/min/m2, 95% CI 0.09–0.61), higher MAP (MD 12.8 mmHg, 95% CI 3.6–22.0), and lower PCWP (MD −5.3 mm Hg, 95% CI −9.4 to −1.2) compared with IABP patients. Similar 30-day mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68–1.66) was observed using percutaneous LVAD compared with IABP. No significant difference was observed in incidence of leg ischaemia (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.75–8.97) in percutaneous LVAD patients compared with IABP patients. Bleeding (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.40–3.93) was significantly more observed in TandemHeart patients compared with patients treated with IABP. Although percutaneous LVAD provides superior haemodynamic support in patients with cardiogenic shock compared with IABP, the use of these more powerful devices did not improve early survival. These results do not yet support percutaneous LVAD as first-choice approach in the mechanical management of cardiogenic shock.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Title PageCurrent Problems in Cardiology, 2009
- Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with persistent ST-segment elevationEuropean Heart Journal, 2008
- ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM)European Heart Journal, 2008
- New percutaneous mechanical left ventricular support for acute MI: the AMC MACH programNature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine, 2007
- Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for treatment of patients with cardiogenic shockCurrent Opinion in Critical Care, 2007
- Trends in Management and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic ShockJAMA, 2005
- Recent magnitude of and temporal trends (1994-1997) in the incidence and hospital death rates of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: The second National Registry of Myocardial InfarctionAmerican Heart Journal, 2001
- Temporal Trends in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Prognosis in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction in the intervencional eraJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1992
- Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1991