MI2AMI-CS: A meta-analysis comparing Impella and IABP outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction-related Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiogenic Shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) poses a significant mortality risk, suggesting the opportunity to implement effective mechanical circulatory support strategies. The comparative efficacy of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) and Impella in managing CS-AMI remains a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of cardiology 2024-11, Vol.414, p.132411, Article 132411
Hauptverfasser: De Ferrari, Tommaso, Pistelli, Lorenzo, Franzino, Marco, Molinero, Agustin Ezequiel, De Santis, Giulia Azzurra, Di Carlo, Alessandro, Vetta, Giampaolo, Parlavecchio, Antonio, Fimiani, Luigi, Picci, Andrea, Certo, Giuseppe, Parisi, Francesca, Venuti, Giuseppe
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Cardiogenic Shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) poses a significant mortality risk, suggesting the opportunity to implement effective mechanical circulatory support strategies. The comparative efficacy of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) and Impella in managing CS-AMI remains a subject of investigation. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of Impella and IABP in managing CS-AMI, exploring mortality and adverse events. A systematic search of major databases from inception to November 2023 identified eight studies, comprising 10,628 patients, comparing Impella and IABP in CS-AMI. Retrospective studies (preferably Propensity-matched) and Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) were included. Impella use exhibited significantly higher mortality (57% vs. 46%; OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.29–1.60; p 
ISSN:0167-5273
1874-1754
1874-1754
DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132411