European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2025
Mechanical circulatory support devices vs. standard medical therapy for treatment of myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Freer Rosie, Frost Olivia, Sreenivas Adithya, Zaghloul Sheref, Bray Jonathan, Ahmad Mahmood, Providência Rui
Аннотация
AIMS: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a common sequitur in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), with significant associated mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have been used in the management of AMI complicated by CS (AMICS). The relative safety and efficacy of these devices in this context is not yet fully established. Our aim is to provide an up-to-date analysis of outcomes to guide future clinical decisions.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis assessing mortality and complications associated with MCS devices, using exclusively randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The devices studied were intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella®, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and TandemHeart®. A total of 18 RCTs were identified, with a combined patient population of 1907. Impella® reduced 6-12 month mortality vs. standard medical therapy [risk ratio (RR) 0.81, P < 0.05] but increased requirement for renal replacement therapy, limb complications, and major bleeding (RR, 1.6; P = 0.02; RR, 4.8; P = 0.02; and RR, 2.0; P = 0.004, respectively). No other form of MCS demonstrated a statistically significant mortality benefit when compared with medical therapy; however, ECMO increased vascular complications and major bleeding (RR, 3.1; P = 0.003 and RR, 2.4, P = 0.0001, respectively), and TandemHeart® increased limb complications (RR, 19; P = 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Impella® support in AMICS was associated with a long-term survival benefit. Impella®, ECMO, and TandemHeart® use were associated with increased morbidity.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis assessing mortality and complications associated with MCS devices, using exclusively randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The devices studied were intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella®, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and TandemHeart®. A total of 18 RCTs were identified, with a combined patient population of 1907. Impella® reduced 6-12 month mortality vs. standard medical therapy [risk ratio (RR) 0.81, P < 0.05] but increased requirement for renal replacement therapy, limb complications, and major bleeding (RR, 1.6; P = 0.02; RR, 4.8; P = 0.02; and RR, 2.0; P = 0.004, respectively). No other form of MCS demonstrated a statistically significant mortality benefit when compared with medical therapy; however, ECMO increased vascular complications and major bleeding (RR, 3.1; P = 0.003 and RR, 2.4, P = 0.0001, respectively), and TandemHeart® increased limb complications (RR, 19; P = 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Impella® support in AMICS was associated with a long-term survival benefit. Impella®, ECMO, and TandemHeart® use were associated with increased morbidity.