HOMEPRODUCTSCOMPANYCONTACTFAQResearchDictionaryPharmaSign Up FREE or Login

Safety and efficacy of mechanical circulatory support with Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and/or cardiogenic shock: Insights from a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AbstractBACKGROUND:
Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is used for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or for cardiogenic shock (CS) due to acute myocardial infarction. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Impella or IABP when compared with no MCS using a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS:
EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched through February 2020 for RCT evaluating efficacy of Impella vs. IABP vs. no MCS in patients undergoing high-risk PCI or CS. The primary efficacy outcome was 30 day or in-hospital all-cause mortality whereas the primary safety outcomes were major bleeding and vascular complications.
RESULTS:
Our search identified nine RCTs enrolling a total of 1,996 patients with high-risk PCI and/or CS. There was no significant difference with Impella or IABP on all-cause mortality when compared with no MCS (Impella vs. no MCS; OR:0.82 [0.35-1.90], p = .65, IABP vs. no MCS; OR:0.77 [0.47-1.28], p = .31, I2 = 18.1%). Impella significantly increased major bleeding compared with no MCS (Impella vs. no MCS; OR:7.01 [1.11-44.4], p = .038, I2 = 19.2%). IABP did not increase the risk of major bleeding compared with no MCS (OR:1.27 [0.75-2.16], p = .38, I2 = 19.2%) but increased vascular complication compared with no MCS (OR:1.92 [1.01-3.64], p = .045, I2 = 1.5%).
CONCLUSIONS:
Neither Impella nor IABP decreased all-cause short-term mortality when compared with no MCS for high-risk PCI and/or CS. Moreover, Impella increased major bleeding compared with no MCS.
AuthorsToshiki Kuno, Hisato Takagi, Tomo Ando, Masaki Kodaira, Yohei Numasawa, John Fox, Sripal Bangalore
JournalCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions (Catheter Cardiovasc Interv) Vol. 97 Issue 5 Pg. E636-E645 (04 01 2021) ISSN: 1522-726X [Electronic] United States
PMID32894797 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Meta-Analysis)
Copyright© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Topics
  • Heart-Assist Devices (adverse effects)
  • Humans
  • Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping (adverse effects)
  • Network Meta-Analysis
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (adverse effects)
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Shock, Cardiogenic (diagnosis, etiology, therapy)
  • Treatment Outcome

Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!

Take advantage of free CureHunter research engine access to explore the best drug and treatment options for any disease. Find out why thousands of doctors, pharma researchers and patient activists around the world use CureHunter every day.
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research graph!


Choose Username:
Email:
Password:
Verify Password:
Enter Code Shown: