Short and long term effect of adjunctive intra-aortic balloon pump use for patients undergoing high risk reperfusion therapy: a meta-analysis of 10 international randomised trials

Effects of mechanical circulatory support devices in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The survival benefit of using mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still controversial. It is necessary to explore the impact on clinical outcomes of MCS in patients with AMI undergoing stenting.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Clinicaltrialsregister.eu databases were searched from database inception to February 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on MCS use in patients with AMI undergoing stent implantation were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated for clinical outcomes according to random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve studies of 1497 patients with AMI were included, nine studies including 1382 patients compared MCS with non-MCS, and three studies including 115 patients compared percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) versus intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Compared with non-MCS, MCS was not associated with short-term (within 30 days) (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.41; I²=46.8%) and long-term (at least 6 months) (RR=0.82; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; I²=37.6%) mortality reductions. In the subset of patients without cardiogenic shock (CS) compared with non-MCS, the patients with IABP treatment significantly had decreased long-term mortality (RR=0.49; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; I²=0), but without the short-term mortality reductions (RR=0.51; 95% CI 0.22 to 1.19; I²=17.9%). While in the patients with CS, the patients with MCS did not benefit from the short-term (RR=1.09; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.79; I²=46.6%) or long-term (RR=1.00; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33; I²=22.1%) survival. Moreover, the application of pVADs increased risk of bleeding (RR=1.86; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.00; I²=15.3%) compared with IABP treatment (RR=1.86; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.00; I²=15.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In all patients with AMI undergoing stent implantation, the MCS use does not reduce all-cause mortality. Patients without CS can benefit from MCS regarding long-term survival, while patients with CS seem not.

Current indications for the intra-aortic balloon pump: The CP-GARO registry

BACKGROUND

Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) have been used routinely since the 1970s. Recently, large randomized trials failed to show that IABP therapy has meaningful benefit, and international recommendations downgraded its place, particularly in cardiogenic shock.

AIMS

The aim of this registry was to describe the contemporary use of IABP therapy, in light of these new data.

METHODS

This prospective multicentre registry included 172 patients implanted with an IABP in 19 French cardiac centres in 2015. Baseline characteristics, aetiologies leading to IABP use, and IABP-related and disease-related complications were assessed. In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were studied.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included (mean age 65.5±12.0 years; 118 men [68.6%]). The reasons for IABP implantation were mainly haemodynamic (n=107; 62.2%), followed by bridge to revascularization (n=34; 19.8%) and four other "rare" aetiologies (n=29 patients; 16.8%). In-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were 40.7% and 45.8%, respectively. Fourteen patients (8.1%) experienced ischaemic or haemorrhagic complications, which were directly related to the IABP in seven patients (4.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite current international guidelines regarding the place of IABPs in ischaemic cardiogenic shock without mechanical complications, this aetiology remains the leading cause for its utilization in the contemporary era.

Mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock in intensive care units: A position paper of the "Unité de Soins Intensifs de Cardiologie" group of the French Society of Cardiology, endorsed by the "Groupe Athérome et Cardiologie Interventionnelle" of the French Society of Cardiology

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a major challenge in contemporary cardiology. Despite a better understanding of the pathophysiology of CS, its management has only improved slightly. The prevalence of CS has remained stable over the past decade, but its outcome has seen few improvements, with the 1-month mortality rate still in the range of 40-60%. Inotropes and vasopressors are the first-line therapies for CS, but they are associated with significant hazards, and have well-known deleterious effects. Furthermore, a significant number of patients develop refractory CS with haemodynamic instability, causing critical organ hypoperfusion and/or pulmonary congestion, despite increasing doses of catecholamines. A major change has resulted from the recent advent and availability of potent mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices. These devices, which ensure sustained blood flow, provide a great and long-awaited opportunity to improve the prognosis of CS. Several efficient MCS devices are now available, including left ventricle-to-aorta circulatory support devices and full pulmonary and circulatory support with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. However, evidence to support their indications, the timing of implantation and the selection of patients and devices is scarce. Because these devices are gaining momentum and are becoming readily available, the "Unité de Soins Intensifs de Cardiologie" group of the French Society of Cardiology aims to propose practical algorithms for the use of these devices, to help intensive care unit and cardiac care unit physicians in this complex area, where evidence is limited.

Prognostic value of clinical, echocardiographic and angiographic indicators in patients with large anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction as a first acute coronary event

BACKGROUND

The risk of death in patients affected by ST-elevation segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) is well known, but more data are required to define the in-hospital mortality in special subsets. We sought to assess the prognostic value of indicators in patients with large anterior STEMI as a first acute coronary event, undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated 48 consecutive large anterior STEMI patients admitted as first acute coronary event, undergoing in acute phase both PCI and IABP. Patient demographics, clinical, noninvasive and invasive findings, together with in-hospital complications, were collected. Moreover, findings obtained after a 24-month follow-up were reported. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, whereas the secondary endpoints were out of hospital mortality, rehospitalization for heart failure or reinfarction, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class at least 2 at follow-up visit. The univariate analysis showed a significant association with symptom to balloon, left anterior descending coronary artery, myocardial blush grade, and wall motion score index. Results of the multivariable analysis revealed the strongest predictive power for in-hospital mortality of proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (odds ratio: 6.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-67.7) and of myocardial blush grade 0-1 (odds ratio: 5.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.0-38.8). In-hospital death occurred in 13 patients (27% of total cases), whereas, at follow-up, the mean of survival was 66.7 ± 7.0%.

CONCLUSION

The patients with large anterior STEMI as a first acute coronary event, undergoing PCI and IABP, had a very high in-hospital mortality, whereas the mortality rate over the follow-up period was lower. The involvement of a large territory at risk and the ineffective treatment in terms of myocardial reperfusion were the main predictors of in-hospital mortality.

The Effects of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps on Mortality in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Coronary Revascularization: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Stenting Era

Background

Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) have generally been used for patients undergoing high-risk mechanical coronary revascularization. However, there is still insufficient evidence to determine whether they can improve outcomes in reperfusion therapy patients, mainly by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). This study was designed to determine the difference between high-risk mechanical coronary revascularization with and without IABPs on mortality, by performing a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials of the current era.

Methods

Pubmed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2015. Unpublished data were obtained from the investigators. Randomized clinical trials of IABP and non-IABP in high-risk coronary revascularization procedures (PCI or CABG) were included. In the case of PCI procedures, stents should be used in more than 80% of patients. Numbers of events at the short-term and long-term follow-up were extracted.

Results

A total of 12 randomized trials enrolling 2155 patients were included. IABPs did not significantly decrease short-term mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42–1.01), or long-term mortality (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.47–1.35), with low heterogeneity across the studies. The findings remained stable in patients with acute myocardial infarction with or without cardiogenic shock. But in high-risk CABG patients, IABP was associated with reduced mortality (71 events in 846 patients; RR 0.40; 95%CI 0.25–0.67).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing high-risk coronary revascularization, IABP did not significantly decrease mortality. But high-risk CABG patients may be benefit from IABP. Rigorous criteria should be applied to the use of IABPs.

Preoperative intra-aortic counterpulsation in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials†

In contrast to the results of previous studies, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) failed to show a benefit of prophylactic aortic counterpulsation in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The present analysis aims to redefine the effects of this treatment modality in the light of this new evidence. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for full-text articles of RCTs in English or German. Assessments for eligibility, relevance, study validity and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently using prespecified criteria. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. A total of nine eligible RCTs with 1171 patients were identified: 577 patients were treated preoperatively with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and 594 patients served as controls. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for hospital mortality (22 hospital deaths in the intervention arm, 54 in the control group) was 0.381 (95% CI 0.230-0.629; P < 0.001). The pooled analyses of five RCTs including only patients undergoing isolated on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (n[IABP] = 348, n[control] = 347) also showed a statistically significant improvement in mortality for preoperative IABP implantation (fixed-effects model: OR 0.267, 95% CI 0.129-0.552, P < 0.001). The pooled OR for hospital mortality from two randomized off-pump trials was 0.556 (fixed-effects model, 95% CI 0.207-1.493, P = 0.226). Preoperative aortic counterpulsation was associated with a significant reduction in low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) in the total population (fixed-effects model: OR 0.330, 95% CI 0.214-0.508, P < 0.001) as well as in the subgroup of CAGB patients (fixed-effects model: OR 0.113, 95% CI 0.056-0.226, P < 0.001), whereas there was no benefit in the off-pump population (fixed-effects model: OR 0.555, 95% CI 0.209-1.474, P = 0.238). Preoperative IABP implantation was associated with a reduction of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in all investigated populations with a greater effect in the total population [fixed-effects model: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.931 ± 0.198, P < 0.001] as well as in the subgroup of CAGB patients (fixed-effects model: SMD -1.240 ± 0.156, P < 0.001), compared with the off-pump group (fixed-effects model: SMD -0.723 ± 0.128, P < 0.001). Despite contradictory results from recent trials, the present study confirms the findings of previous meta-analyses that prophylactic aortic counterpulsation reduces hospital mortality, incidence of LCOS and ICU requirement in high-risk patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery. However, owing to small sample sizes and the lack of a clear-cut definition of high-risk patients, an adequately powered, prospective RCT is necessary to find a definite answer to the question, if certain groups of patients undergoing cardiac surgery benefit from a prophylactic IABP insertion.

The efficacy and safety of mechanical hemodynamic support in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with or without cardiogenic shock: Bayesian approach network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported conflicting results regarding efficacy of mechanical hemodynamic support using intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or percutaneous ventricular assisted device (pVAD) in patients undergoing high-risk PCI. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of mechanical hemodynamic support devices and medical therapy (MT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

RCTs comparing overall mortality of IABP versus MT or IABP versus pVAD in high-risk PCI populations were included. The primary endpoint was overall mortality, using the longest available follow-up in each study. This analysis included 2843 patients from 13 trials. In network meta-analysis, overall survival benefit was not significant with IABP (RR 0.84, 95% CrI 0.56-1.24) or pVAD (RR 0.95, 95% CrI 0.42-2.06), compared with MT. IABP or pVAD also did not show early survival benefit compared with MT. In terms of bleeding, pVAD was the worst (versus IABP: RR 29.4, 95% CrI 5.99-221.0; versus MT: RR 41.7, 95% CrI 8.19-330.0), which was mainly driven by the higher incidence of bleeding in the ECMO and TandemHeart, while IABP was worse than MT (RR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.01-2.08). The incidence of acute limb ischemia or vascular complication was not different between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, routine elective use of IABP or pVAD did not reduce mortality, while it increased bleeding, compared with MT in high-risk PCI population or even in the patients with cardiogenic shock. Thoughtful selection of appropriate patients and balancing the risk and benefit should be the prerequisites to the use of mechanical hemodynamic support devices.