Mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock not secondary to cardiotomy: a network meta-analysis

Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

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.

Periprocedural antithrombotic strategies in acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Have we discarded bivalirudin too soon?

BACKGROUND

Publication of the BRIGHT-4 trial results has restimulated discussion about the optimal periprocedural antithrombotic strategy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). It is possible that variation in the infusion duration, may contribute to observed differences in safety-efficacy profiles of bivalirudin in this clinical setting.

METHODS

Up to December 2022, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin (either administered peri-procedurally or accompanied by postprocedural infusion) and heparin, both with or without GPI, were searched and entered in a frequentist network meta-analysis. Co-primary endpoints were trial-defined major adverse composite events (MACE) and major bleeding. Incident rate ratios (IRR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were estimated.

RESULTS

10 RCTs (N = 57,137 patients/month) were included. As compared to heparin, prolonged bivalirudin infusion resulted in lower rates of major bleeding (IRR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.36-0.91), but there was no differences in MACE rates between these strategies. With regard to NACE, prolonged bivalirudin infusion yielded lower risk (IRR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.77-0.96), whereas both bivalirudin and heparin increased risk when coupled with GPI (IRR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.01-1.51 and IRR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.06-1.44, respectively). Both these combination strategies also increased minor bleeding rates (IRR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.16-1.93 and IRR 1.58, 95 % CI 1.29-1.95, respectively, for bivalirudin and heparin). Results were consistent across several sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, procedural bivalirudin administration followed by prolonged infusion results in lower major bleeding rates, but there does not appear to be a difference in observed MACE.

Current and future options for adult biventricular assistance: a review of literature

In cardiogenic shock various short-term mechanical assistances may be employed, including an Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenator and other non-dischargeable devices. Once hemodynamic stabilization is achieved and the patient evolves towards a persisting biventricular dysfunction or an underlying long-standing end-stage disease is present, aside from Orthotopic Heart Transplantation, a limited number of long-term therapeutic options may be offered. So far, only the Syncardia Total Artificial Heart and the Berlin Heart EXCOR (which is not approved for adult use in the United States unlike in Europe) are available for extensive implantation. In addition to this, the strategy providing two continuous-flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices is still off-label despite its widespread use. Nevertheless, every solution ensures at best a 70% survival rate (reflecting both the severity of the condition and the limits of mechanical support) with patients suffering from heavy complications and a poor quality of life. The aim of the present paper is to summarize the features, implantation techniques, and results of current devices used for adult Biventricular Mechanical Circulatory Support, as well as a glance to future options.

Perspectives and Considerations of IABP in the Era of ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock

The development of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has been rapid, and its use worldwide in patients with cardiogenic shock is increasingly widespread. However, current statistical data and clinical research do not demonstrate its significant improvement in the patient prognosis. This review focuses on the widely used intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), analyzing and comparing their characteristics, efficacy, risk of complications, and the current exploration status of left ventricular mechanical unloading. Subsequently, we propose a rational approach to viewing the negative outcomes of current MCS, and look ahead to the future development trends of IABP.

The Use of Cardioprotective Devices and Strategies in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Procedures and Cardiac Surgery

In the United States, about one million people are seen to visit the operating theater for cardiac surgery annually. However, nearly half of these visits result in complications such as renal, neurological, and cardiac injury of varying degrees. Historically, many mechanisms and approaches have been explored in attempts to reduce injuries associated with cardiac surgery and percutaneous procedures. Devices such as cardioplegia, mechanical circulatory support, and other methods have shown promising results in managing and preventing life-threatening cardiac-surgery-related outcomes such as heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Comparably, cardioprotective devices such as TandemHeart, Impella family devices, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) have also been proven to show significant cardioprotection through mechanical support. However, their use as interventional agents in the prevention of hemodynamic changes due to cardiac surgery or percutaneous interventions has been correlated with adverse effects. This can lead to a rebound increased risk of mortality in high-risk patients who undergo cardiac surgery. Further research is necessary to delineate and stratify patients into appropriate cardioprotective device groups. Furthermore, the use of one device over another in terms of efficacy remains controversial and further research is necessary to assess device potential in different settings. Clinical research is also needed regarding novel strategies and targets, such as transcutaneous vagus stimulation and supersaturated oxygen therapy, aimed at reducing mortality among high-risk cardiac surgery patients. This review explores the recent advances regarding the use of cardioprotective devices in patients undergoing percutaneous procedures and cardiac surgery.

Mechanical Unloading of the Left Ventricle before Coronary Reperfusion in Preclinical Models of Myocardial Infarction without Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis

Aim: to compare a conventional primary reperfusion strategy with a primary unloading approach before reperfusion in preclinical studies. Methods: we performed a meta-analysis of preclinical studies. The primary endpoint was infarct size (IS). Secondary endpoints were left ventricle end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), cardiac output (CO). We calculated mean differences (MDs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses on the primary and secondary endpoints, as well as a meta-regression on the primary endpoint using the year of publication as a covariate, were also conducted. Results: 11 studies (n = 142) were selected and entered in the meta-analysis. Primary unloading reduced IS (MD −28.82, 95% CI −35.78 to −21.86, I2 96%, p < 0.01) and LVEDP (MD −3.88, 95% CI −5.33 to −2.44, I2 56%, p = 0.02) and increased MAP (MD 7.26, 95% CI 1.40 to 13.12, I2 43%, p < 0.01) and HR (MD 5.26, 95% CI 1.97 to 8.55, I2 1%, p < 0.01), while being neutral on CO (MD −0.11, 95% CI −0.95 to 0.72, I2 88%, p = 0.79). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed, overall, consistent results. The meta-regression on the primary endpoint demonstrated a significant influence of the year of publication on effect estimate. Conclusions: in animal models of myocardial infarction, a primary unloading significantly reduces IS and exerts beneficial hemodynamic effects compared to a primary reperfusion.