scholarly journals Mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock not secondary to cardiotomy: a network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Benenati ◽  
Matteo Toma ◽  
Claudia Canale ◽  
Rocco Vergallo ◽  
Roberta Della Bona ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Axial Pump ◽  
Short Term Mortality ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Important Quality ◽  
Significant Publication Bias

Abstract To compare the efficacy and safety of different mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in CS. A total of 24 studies (7 randomized controlled trials—RCTs—and 17 non-RCTs) involving 11,117 patients were entered in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were stroke and bleeding (requiring transfusion and/or intracranial and/or fatal). Compared with no MCS, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) reduced 30-day mortality when used both alone (OR 0.37, 95% CrI 0.15–0.90) and together with the micro-axial pump Impella (OR 0.13, 95% CrI 0.02–0.80) or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.05–0.63), although the relevant articles were affected by significant publication bias. Consistent results were obtained in a sensitivity analysis including only studies of CS due to myocardial infarction. After halving the weight of studies with a non-RCT design, only the benefit of ECMO + IABP on 30-day mortality was maintained (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.057–0.76). The risk of bleeding was increased by TandemHeart (OR 13, 95% CrI 3.50–59), Impella (OR 5, 95% CrI 1.60–18), and IABP (OR 2.2, 95% CrI 1.10–4.4). No significant differences were found across MCS strategies regarding stroke. Although limited by important quality issues, the studies performed so far indicate that ECMO, especially if combined with Impella or IABP, reduces short-term mortality in CS. MCS increases the hazard of bleeding.

scholarly journals 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

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e044072
Author(s):  
Yunmin Shi ◽  
Yujie Wang ◽  
Xuejing Sun ◽  
Yan Tang ◽  
Mengqing Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Stent Implantation ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Short Term

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.

scholarly journals Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as mechanical circulatory support in adult septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis with individual participant data meta-regression analysis

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Ruiyang Ling ◽  
Kollengode Ramanathan ◽  
Wynne Hsing Poon ◽  
Chuen Seng Tan ◽  
Nicolas Brechot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Refractory Septic Shock ◽  
Va Ecmo

Abstract Background While recommended by international societal guidelines in the paediatric population, the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) as mechanical circulatory support for refractory septic shock in adults is controversial. We aimed to characterise the outcomes of adults with septic shock requiring VA ECMO, and identify factors associated with survival. Methods We searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane databases from inception until 1st June 2021, and included all relevant publications reporting on > 5 adult patients requiring VA ECMO for septic shock. Study quality and certainty in evidence were assessed using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, respectively. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge, and secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay, duration of ECMO support, complications while on ECMO, and sources of sepsis. Random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird) were conducted. Data synthesis We included 14 observational studies with 468 patients in the meta-analysis. Pooled survival was 36.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.6%–50.1%). Survival among patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 20% (62.0%, 95%-CI: 51.6%–72.0%) was significantly higher than those with LVEF > 35% (32.1%, 95%-CI: 8.69%–60.7%, p = 0.05). Survival reported in studies from Asia (19.5%, 95%-CI: 13.0%–26.8%) was notably lower than those from Europe (61.0%, 95%-CI: 48.4%–73.0%) and North America (45.5%, 95%-CI: 16.7%–75.8%). GRADE assessment indicated high certainty of evidence for pooled survival. Conclusions When treated with VA ECMO, the majority of patients with septic shock and severe sepsis-induced myocardial depression survive. However, VA ECMO has poor outcomes in adults with septic shock without severe left ventricular depression. VA ECMO may be a viable treatment option in carefully selected adult patients with refractory septic shock.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document