Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE: Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy is a widely used intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Guidelines, which previously strongly recommended it, have recently undergone substantial change. OBJECTIVE: To assess IABP efficacy in acute myocardial infarcti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JAMA internal medicine 2015-06, Vol.175 (6), p.931-939
Hauptverfasser: Ahmad, Yousif, Sen, Sayan, Shun-Shin, Matthew J, Ouyang, Jing, Finegold, Judith A, Al-Lamee, Rasha K, Davies, Justin E. R, Cole, Graham D, Francis, Darrel P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:IMPORTANCE: Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) therapy is a widely used intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Guidelines, which previously strongly recommended it, have recently undergone substantial change. OBJECTIVE: To assess IABP efficacy in acute myocardial infarction. DATA SOURCES: Human studies found in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries through December 2014 and in reference lists of selected articles. Search strings were “myocardial infarction” or “acute coronary syndrome” and “intra-aortic balloon pump” or “counterpulsation.” STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing use of IABP with no IABP in patients with acute myocardial infarction. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted the data, and risk of bias in RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We conducted separate meta-analyses of the RCTs and observational studies. Data were quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day mortality. RESULTS: There were 12 eligible RCTs randomizing 2123 patients. In the RCTs, IABP use had no statistically significant effect on mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.74-1.24]), with no significant heterogeneity among trials (I2 = 0%; P = .52). This result was consistent when studies were stratified by the presence (OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.69-1.28]; P = .69, I2 = 0%) or absence (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.57-1.69]; P = .95, I2 = 17%) of cardiogenic shock. There were 15 eligible observational studies totaling 15 530 patients. Their results were mutually conflicting (heterogeneity I2 = 97%; P 
ISSN:2168-6106
2168-6114
DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0569