Comparative safety of percutaneous ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction-induced cardiogenic shock

Department

Internal Medicine

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Open Heart

Abstract

Background The relative safety of percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pVAD) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction remain unknown. Methods Multiple databases were searched to identify articles comparing pVAD and IABP. An unadjusted OR was used to calculate hard clinical outcomes and mortality differences on a random effect model. Results Seven studies comprising 26 726 patients (1110 in the pVAD group and 25 616 in the IABP group) were included. The odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68, p=0.00001) and need for revascularisation (OR 0.16, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.38, p=0.0001) were significantly reduced in patients receiving pVAD compared with IABP. The odds of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.14 to 9.17, p=0.91), acute limb ischaemia (OR=2.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 15.66, p=0.33) and major bleeding (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 25.39, p=0.64) were not significantly different between the two groups. A sensitivity analysis based on the exclusion of the study with the largest weight showed no difference in the mortality difference between the two mechanical circulatory support devices. Conclusions In patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, there is no significant difference in the adjusted risk of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, stroke and limb ischaemia between the devices. Randomised trials are warranted to investigate further the safety and efficacy of these devices in patients with cardiogenic shock.

DOI

10.1136/openhrt-2021-001662

Volume

8

Issue

1

Publication Date

6-14-2021

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS