Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies
Authors:
- Christopher Jer Wei LowCLChristopher Jer Wei Low
- Ryan Ruiyang LingRLRyan Ruiyang Ling
- Michele Petrova Xin Ling LauMLMichele Petrova Xin Ling Lau
- Nigel Sheng Hui LiuNLNigel Sheng Hui Liu
- Chuen Seng TanCTChuen Seng Tan
- Shir Lynn LimSLShir Lynn Lim
- Bram RochwergBRBram Rochwerg
- Alain CombesACAlain Combes
- Daniel BrodieDBDaniel Brodie
- Kiran ShekarKSKiran Shekar
- 11 January 2024
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Nature in Intensive Care Medicine
- Vol. 50 (2) , 209-221
Abstract
Purpose Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality. In refractory shock, it is unclear if mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices improve survival. We conducted a network meta-analysis to determine which MCS devices confers greatest benefit. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases through 27 August 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched studies (PSMs). We conducted frequentist network meta-analysis, investigating mortality (either 30 days or in-hospital) as the primary outcome. We assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool/Newcastle–Ottawa Scale) and as sensitivity analysis reconstructed survival data from published survival curves for a one-stage unadjusted individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using a stratified Cox model. Results We included 38 studies (48,749 patients), mostly reporting on patients with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stages C–E cardiogenic shock. Compared with no MCS, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with intra-aortic balloon pump (ECMO-IABP; network odds ratio [OR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33–0.86, moderate certainty) was associated with lower mortality. There were no differences in mortality between ECMO, IABP, microaxial ventricular assist device (mVAD), ECMO-mVAD, centrifugal VAD, or mVAD-IABP and no MCS (all very low certainty). Our one-stage IPD survival meta-analysis based on the stratified Cox model found only ECMO-IABP was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, HR, 0.55, 95% CI 0.46–0.66). Conclusion In patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO-IABP may reduce mortality, while other MCS devices did not reduce mortality. However, this must be interpreted within the context of inter-study heterogeneity and limited certainty of evidence.Keywords
This publication has 97 references indexed in Scilit:
- Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curvesBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2012
- Treating Refractory Cardiogenic Shock With the TandemHeart and Impella Devices: A Single Center ExperienceCardiology Research, 2012
- GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistencyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tablesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- Comparison of In-Hospital Versus 30-Day Mortality Assessments for Selected Medical ConditionsMedical Care, 2010
- Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment ComparisonsJournal of the American Statistical Association, 2006
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimatesBMJ, 2003
- Proportional hazards models with frailties and random effectsStatistics in Medicine, 2002
- A Comparison of Observational Studies and Randomized, Controlled TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2000