|
1
|
Low CJW, Ling RR, Lau MPXL, Liu NSH, Tan M, Tan CS, Lim SL, Rochwerg B, Combes A, Brodie D, Shekar K, Price S, MacLaren G, Ramanathan K. Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies. Intensive Care Med 2024; 50:209-221. [PMID: 38206381 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-023-07278-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2023] [Accepted: 11/13/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality. In refractory shock, it is unclear if mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices improve survival. We conducted a network meta-analysis to determine which MCS devices confers greatest benefit. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases through 27 August 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched studies (PSMs). We conducted frequentist network meta-analysis, investigating mortality (either 30 days or in-hospital) as the primary outcome. We assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool/Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and as sensitivity analysis reconstructed survival data from published survival curves for a one-stage unadjusted individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using a stratified Cox model. RESULTS We included 38 studies (48,749 patients), mostly reporting on patients with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stages C-E cardiogenic shock. Compared with no MCS, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with intra-aortic balloon pump (ECMO-IABP; network odds ratio [OR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.86, moderate certainty) was associated with lower mortality. There were no differences in mortality between ECMO, IABP, microaxial ventricular assist device (mVAD), ECMO-mVAD, centrifugal VAD, or mVAD-IABP and no MCS (all very low certainty). Our one-stage IPD survival meta-analysis based on the stratified Cox model found only ECMO-IABP was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, HR, 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.66). CONCLUSION In patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO-IABP may reduce mortality, while other MCS devices did not reduce mortality. However, this must be interpreted within the context of inter-study heterogeneity and limited certainty of evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Jer Wei Low
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ryan Ruiyang Ling
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Michele Petrova Xin Ling Lau
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Nigel Sheng Hui Liu
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Melissa Tan
- Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Level 9, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore
| | - Chuen Seng Tan
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Shir Lynn Lim
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
- Duke-NUS Medical School, Pre-Hospital and Emergency Research Center, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Bram Rochwerg
- Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Alain Combes
- Service de Médecine Intensive-RéanimationInstitut de Cardiologie, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France
- UMRS 116, Institute of Cardio Metabolism and Nutrition, Sorbonne Universite INSERM, Paris, France
| | - Daniel Brodie
- Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kiran Shekar
- Adult Intensive Care Services, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
- Queensland University of Technology, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
- University of Queensland, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
- Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia
| | - Susanna Price
- Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals, London, UK
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Graeme MacLaren
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
- Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Level 9, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore
| | - Kollengode Ramanathan
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
- Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Level 9, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Zhang Q, Han Y, Sun S, Zhang C, Liu H, Wang B, Wei S. Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2022; 22:48. [PMID: 35152887 PMCID: PMC8842943 DOI: 10.1186/s12872-022-02493-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 02/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used for cardiogenic shock (CS). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate which MCS strategy offers advantages. Methods A systemic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies included double-blind, randomized controlled, and observational trials, with 30-day follow-ups. Paired independent researchers conducted the screening, data extraction, quality assessment, and consistency and heterogeneity assessment. Results We included 39 studies (1 report). No significant difference in 30-day mortality was noted between venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and VA-ECMO plus Impella, Impella, and medical therapy. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the optimal ranking of the interventions was surgical venting plus VA-ECMO, medical therapy, VA-ECMO plus Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, Tandem Heart, VA-ECMO, and Impella plus IABP. Regarding in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality, the forest plot showed low heterogeneity. The results of the node-splitting approach showed that direct and indirect comparisons had a relatively high consistency. Conclusions IABP more effectively reduce the incidence of 30-day mortality compared with VA-ECMO and Impella for the treatment of CS. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-022-02493-0.
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Ullah W, Zghouzi M, Mukhtar M, Banisad A, Alhatemi G, Sattar Y, Zahid S, Moussa Pacha H, Gardi D, Alraies MC. Comparative safety of percutaneous ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction-induced cardiogenic shock. Open Heart 2021; 8:openhrt-2021-001662. [PMID: 34127531 PMCID: PMC8204163 DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2021-001662] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2021] [Accepted: 05/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The relative safety of percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pVAD) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction remain unknown. METHODS Multiple databases were searched to identify articles comparing pVAD and IABP. An unadjusted OR was used to calculate hard clinical outcomes and mortality differences on a random effect model. RESULTS Seven studies comprising 26 726 patients (1110 in the pVAD group and 25 616 in the IABP group) were included. The odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68, p=<0.00001) and need for revascularisation (OR 0.16, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.38, p=<0.0001) were significantly reduced in patients receiving pVAD compared with IABP. The odds of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.14 to 9.17, p=0.91), acute limb ischaemia (OR=2.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 15.66, p=0.33) and major bleeding (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 25.39, p=0.64) were not significantly different between the two groups. A sensitivity analysis based on the exclusion of the study with the largest weight showed no difference in the mortality difference between the two mechanical circulatory support devices. CONCLUSIONS In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, there is no significant difference in the adjusted risk of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, stroke and limb ischaemia between the devices. Randomised trials are warranted to investigate further the safety and efficacy of these devices in patients with cardiogenic shock.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Waqas Ullah
- Internal Medicine, Jefferson Health-Abington, Abington, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Mohamed Zghouzi
- Internal Medicine, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - Maryam Mukhtar
- Internal Medicine, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
| | - Ali Banisad
- Cardiology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - Gaith Alhatemi
- Cardiology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | - Yasar Sattar
- Internal Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
| | - Salman Zahid
- Internal Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Homam Moussa Pacha
- Cardiology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Delair Gardi
- Cardiology, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Kapur NK, Whitehead EH, Thayer KL, Pahuja M. The science of safety: complications associated with the use of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and best practices to maximize safety. F1000Res 2020; 9. [PMID: 32765837 PMCID: PMC7391013 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.25518.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Acute mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used in cardiogenic shock (CS) despite a lack of high-quality clinical evidence to guide their use. Multiple devices exist across a spectrum from modest to complete support, and each is associated with unique risks. In this review, we summarize existing data on complications associated with the three most widely used acute MCS platforms: the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella systems, and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). We review evidence from available randomized trials and highlight challenges comparing complication rates from case series and comparative observational studies where a lack of granular data precludes appropriate matching of patients by CS severity. We further offer a series of best practices to help shock practitioners minimize the risk of MCS-associated complications and ensure the best possible outcomes for patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Navin K Kapur
- The Cardiovascular Center for Research and Innovation, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Evan H Whitehead
- The Cardiovascular Center for Research and Innovation, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Katherine L Thayer
- The Cardiovascular Center for Research and Innovation, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Mohit Pahuja
- Division of Cardiology, Detroit Medical Center/Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Ali JM, Abu-Omar Y. Complications associated with mechanical circulatory support. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2020; 8:835. [PMID: 32793680 PMCID: PMC7396259 DOI: 10.21037/atm.2020.03.152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/21/2023]
Abstract
There has been a significant increase in the utilisation of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for the management of cardiogenic shock over recent years, with new devices being developed and introduced with the aim of improving outcomes for this group of patients. MCS devices may be used as a bridge to recovery or transplantation or intended as a destination therapy. Although these devices are not without their complications, good outcomes are achieved, but not without risk of significant complications. In this article, the complications of MCS devices have been reviewed, including the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, TandemHeart, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and ventricular assist devices (VAD)—temporary and durable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason M Ali
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| | - Yasir Abu-Omar
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Subramaniam AV, Barsness GW, Vallabhajosyula S, Vallabhajosyula S. Complications of Temporary Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock: An Appraisal of Contemporary Literature. Cardiol Ther 2019; 8:211-228. [PMID: 31646440 PMCID: PMC6828896 DOI: 10.1007/s40119-019-00152-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 93] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with hemodynamic compromise and end-organ hypoperfusion due to a primary cardiac etiology. In addition to vasoactive medications, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices offer the ability to support the hemodynamics and prevent acute organ failure. Despite the wide array of available MCS devices for CS, there are limited data on the complications from these devices. In this review, we seek to summarize the complications of MCS devices in the contemporary era. Using a systems-based approach, this review covers domains of hematological, neurological, vascular, infectious, mechanical, and miscellaneous complications. These data are intended to provide a balanced narrative and aid in risk-benefit decision-making in this acutely ill population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
- Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Romeo F, Acconcia MC, Sergi D, Romeo A, Francioni S, Chiarotti F, Caretta Q. Percutaneous assist devices in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: Review, meta-analysis. World J Cardiol 2016; 8:98-111. [PMID: 26839661 PMCID: PMC4728111 DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v8.i1.98] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2015] [Revised: 09/19/2015] [Accepted: 11/11/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM: To assess the impact of percutaneous cardiac support in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI), treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.
METHODS: We selected all of the studies published from January 1st, 1997 to May 15st, 2015 that compared the following percutaneous mechanical support in patients with CS due to AMI undergoing myocardial revascularization: (1) intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) vs Medical therapy; (2) percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (PLVADs) vs IABP; (3) complete extracorporeal life support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) plus IABP vs IABP alone; and (4) ECMO plus IABP vs ECMO alone, in patients with AMI and CS undergoing myocardial revascularization. We evaluated the impact of the support devices on primary and secondary endpoints. Primary endpoint was the inhospital mortality due to any cause during the same hospital stay and secondary endpoint late mortality at 6-12 mo of follow-up.
RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and seventy-two studies met the initial screening criteria. After detailed review, only 30 were selected. There were 6 eligible randomized controlled trials and 24 eligible observational studies totaling 15799 patients. We found that the inhospital mortality was: (1) significantly higher with IABP support vs medical therapy (RR = +15%, P = 0.0002); (2) was higher, although not significantly, with PLVADs compared to IABP (RR = +14%, P = 0.21); and (3) significantly lower in patients treated with ECMO plus IABP vs IABP (RR = -44%, P = 0.0008) or ECMO (RR = -20%, P = 0.006) alone. In addition, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that in the comparison of IABP vs medical therapy, the sample size was adequate to demonstrate a significant increase in risk due to IABP.
CONCLUSION: Inhospital mortality was significantly higher with IABP vs medical therapy. PLVADs did not reduce early mortality. ECMO plus IABP significantly reduced inhospital mortality compared to IABP.
Collapse
|