Mortality in cardiogenic shock patients receiving mechanical circulatory support: a network meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Objective Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are widely used for cardiogenic shock (CS). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluate which MCS strategy offers advantages. Methods A systemic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Studies included double-blind, randomized controlled, and observational trials, with 30-day follow-ups. Paired independent researchers conducted the screening, data extraction, quality assessment, and consistency and heterogeneity assessment. Results We included 39 studies (1 report). No significant difference in 30-day mortality was noted between venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) and VA-ECMO plus Impella, Impella, and medical therapy. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the optimal ranking of the interventions was surgical venting plus VA-ECMO, medical therapy, VA-ECMO plus Impella, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella, Tandem Heart, VA-ECMO, and Impella plus IABP. Regarding in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality, the forest plot showed low heterogeneity. The results of the node-splitting approach showed that direct and indirect comparisons had a relatively high consistency. Conclusions IABP more effectively reduce the incidence of 30-day mortality compared with VA-ECMO and Impella for the treatment of CS.

Keywords

• Cardiogenic shock
• Mechanical circulatory support
• Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
• Intra-aortic balloon pump
• Impella
• Tandem heart