Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Post-Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) complicates 5%-10% of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is the leading cause of early mortality. It remains unclear whether percutaneous mechanical support (pMCS) devices improve post-AMI CS outcome.

METHODS

A systematic review of original studies comparing the effect of pMCS on AMI-CS mortality was conducted with the use of Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases.

RESULTS

Of 8672 records, 50 were retained for quantitative analysis. Four additional references were added from other sources. Four references reported a significant mortality reduction with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with failed primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) or managed with thrombolysis. Meta-analyses showed no advantage of Impella over conventional therapy (pooled OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20-1.46; I2 = 0.85) and increased mortality compared with IABP (pooled OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.08-1.62; I2 = 0.85). No study reported a mortality advantage for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) over conventional therapy, IABP, or Impella support. Early mortality might be improved with the addition of IABP or Impella to ECMO. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium ≥ 3 bleeding was increased with every pMCS strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence is of poor to moderate quality, with only 1 in 5 included articles reporting randomised data and several reporting unadjusted outcomes. Yet, there is some evidence to favour IABP use in the setting of thrombolysis or with failed pPCI, and adding IABP or Impella should be considered for patients requiring ECMO.