Dataset Information

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices (pMCSDs) are increasingly used on the assumption (but without solid proof) that their use will improve prognosis. A meta-analysis was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the benefits of pMCSDs in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (hr-PCI).

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trial.gov, and other databases to identify eligible studies. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality rates, reinfarction, and other adverse events using a random effect model.

Results

Sixteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this study. In the pooled analysis, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.61-1.66; RR 0.88 95% CI 0.66-1.17), reinfarction (RR 0.89 95% CI 0.69-1.14), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR 1.75 95% CI 0.47-6.42), heart failure (HF) (RR 0.54 95% CI 0.11-2.66), repeat revascularization (RR 0.73 95% CI 0.25-2.10), embolization (RR 3.00 95% CI 0.13-71.61), or arrhythmia (RR 2.81 95% CI 0.30-26.11). Compared with IABP, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were not associated with a decrease in 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality (RR 0.96 95% CI 0.71-1.29; RR 1.23 95% CI 0.88-1.72), reinfarction (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.68-1.42), stroke/TIA (RR 0.45 95% CI 0.1-1.95), acute kidney injury (AKI) (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.38-1.80), or arrhythmia (RR 1.52 95% CI 0.71-3.27), but LVADs were associated with a decrease in repeat revascularization (RR 0.26 95% CI 0.08-0.83). However, LVADs significantly increased the risk of bleeding compared with IABP (RR 2.85 95% CI 1.72-4.73).

Conclusions

Neither LVADs nor IABP improves short or long-term survival in hr-PCI patients. LVADs are more likely to reduce repeat revascularization after PCI, but to increase the risk of bleeding events than IABP.

SUBMITTER: Shi W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6750338 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Shi Wenhai W Wang Wuwan W Wang Kechun K Huang Wei W

Medicine 20190901 37

<h4>Background</h4>Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices (pMCSDs) are increasingly used on the assumption (but without solid proof) that their use will improve prognosis. A meta-analysis was undertaken according to the PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the benefits of pMCSDs in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (hr-PCI).<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trial.gov, and other databases to identify eligible studies. Relat ...[more]

PMID: 31517843

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveThe 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.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEmbase, Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Clinicaltrialsregister.eu databases were searched from database inception to February 2021.Eligibility criteriaRandomised clinical trials (RCTs) on MCS use in patients with AMI undergoing stent implantation were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were calculated for clinical outcomes according to random-effects model.ResultsTwelve 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%).ConclusionsIn 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.

Project description:Durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices revolutionized the treatment options for patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). Implantation of durable mechanical support has become an integral treatment modality in end-stage HF patients and it is associated with improved quality of life and survival. There is no doubt that this needs an interdisciplinary and interprofessional approach of cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, cardiac anesthesiologists, perfusionists, intensivists, psychologists, assist device coordinators as well as physiotherapists and intensive care. Implantation of durable MCS is a challenging procedure for the anesthesiologist due to the patient's characteristics and comorbid diseases. It demands comprehensive training, high vigilance and quick response during the acute hemodynamic changes occurring during the surgery. Preoperative risk stratification is of major importance to guide perioperative medical treatment strategies. Most of these patients have several comorbidities and multiple medications. Therefore, to anticipate postoperative end-organ dysfunction such as cognitive dysfunction, pulmonary or renal failure, an interdisciplinary approach is necessary to optimize patient's prior surgery. Transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography (TTE and TEE), both play an invaluable role in diagnosing the cause and guiding the management in different unstable clinical situations. Especially prevention of postoperative right HF with subsequent necessity of temporary MCS is important as it is associated with higher mortality. The aim of this review is to provide an overview about the current concepts of perioperative management for durable MCS. A multimodal standard operating procedure supports early recovery after surgery and intensive care stay. Standardized perioperative care helps to ensure optimal medical treatment. This review focusses on several major skills of perioperative management of these high-risk surgical patients.

Dataset Information

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets