Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis
ObjectiveStudies on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with and without an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) for cardiogenic shock (CS) have been published, but there have been no meta-analyses that compare the efficacy of these two cardiac support methods. This meta-analysis evaluated the ou...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.917610/full |
| _version_ | 1818466506206347264 |
|---|---|
| author | Ping Zeng Chaojun Yang Jing Chen Zhixing Fan Wanyin Cai Yifan Huang Zujin Xiang Jun Yang Jing Zhang Jian Yang |
| author_facet | Ping Zeng Chaojun Yang Jing Chen Zhixing Fan Wanyin Cai Yifan Huang Zujin Xiang Jun Yang Jing Zhang Jian Yang |
| author_sort | Ping Zeng |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ObjectiveStudies on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with and without an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) for cardiogenic shock (CS) have been published, but there have been no meta-analyses that compare the efficacy of these two cardiac support methods. This meta-analysis evaluated the outcomes of these two different treatment measures.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinical Trials databases were searched until March 2022. Studies that were related to ECMO with or without IABP in patients with CS were screened. Quality assessments were evaluated with the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS). The primary outcome was in-hospital survival, while the secondary outcomes included duration of ECMO, duration of ICU stay, infection/sepsis, and bleeding. Revman 5.3 and STATA software were used for this meta-analysis.ResultsIn total, nine manuscripts with 2,573 patients were included in the systematic review. CS patients who received ECMO in combination with IABP had significantly improved in-hospital survival compared with ECMO alone (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.26–1.98, P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of ECMO (MD = 0.36, 95% CI = −0.12–0.84, P = 0.14), duration of ICU stay (MD = −1.95, 95% CI = −4.05–0.15, P = 0.07), incidence of infection/sepsis (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.58–1.72, P = 1.0), or bleeding (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.48–3.45, P = 0.62) between the two groups of patients with CS.ConclusionECMO combined with IABP can improve in-hospital survival more effectively than ECMO alone in patients with CS. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T20:59:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ac146c9077ae46c085d623791e349eac |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2297-055X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T20:59:16Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-ac146c9077ae46c085d623791e349eac2022-12-22T02:30:13ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine2297-055X2022-07-01910.3389/fcvm.2022.917610917610Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-AnalysisPing Zeng0Chaojun Yang1Jing Chen2Zhixing Fan3Wanyin Cai4Yifan Huang5Zujin Xiang6Jun Yang7Jing Zhang8Jian Yang9Department of Cardiology, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, ChinaHubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Renmin Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, ChinaDepartment of Cardiology, The First College of Clinical Medical Science, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, ChinaObjectiveStudies on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with and without an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) for cardiogenic shock (CS) have been published, but there have been no meta-analyses that compare the efficacy of these two cardiac support methods. This meta-analysis evaluated the outcomes of these two different treatment measures.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinical Trials databases were searched until March 2022. Studies that were related to ECMO with or without IABP in patients with CS were screened. Quality assessments were evaluated with the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS). The primary outcome was in-hospital survival, while the secondary outcomes included duration of ECMO, duration of ICU stay, infection/sepsis, and bleeding. Revman 5.3 and STATA software were used for this meta-analysis.ResultsIn total, nine manuscripts with 2,573 patients were included in the systematic review. CS patients who received ECMO in combination with IABP had significantly improved in-hospital survival compared with ECMO alone (OR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.26–1.98, P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of ECMO (MD = 0.36, 95% CI = −0.12–0.84, P = 0.14), duration of ICU stay (MD = −1.95, 95% CI = −4.05–0.15, P = 0.07), incidence of infection/sepsis (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.58–1.72, P = 1.0), or bleeding (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.48–3.45, P = 0.62) between the two groups of patients with CS.ConclusionECMO combined with IABP can improve in-hospital survival more effectively than ECMO alone in patients with CS.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.917610/fullextracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP)cardiogenic shocksurvival (MeSH)meta-analysis |
| spellingShingle | Ping Zeng Chaojun Yang Jing Chen Zhixing Fan Wanyin Cai Yifan Huang Zujin Xiang Jun Yang Jing Zhang Jian Yang Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) cardiogenic shock survival (MeSH) meta-analysis |
| title | Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_full | Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_short | Comparison of the Efficacy of ECMO With or Without IABP in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis |
| title_sort | comparison of the efficacy of ecmo with or without iabp in patients with cardiogenic shock a meta analysis |
| topic | extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) cardiogenic shock survival (MeSH) meta-analysis |
| url | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.917610/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT pingzeng comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis AT chaojunyang comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis AT jingchen comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis AT zhixingfan comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis AT wanyincai comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis AT yifanhuang comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis AT zujinxiang comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis AT junyang comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis AT jingzhang comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis AT jianyang comparisonoftheefficacyofecmowithorwithoutiabpinpatientswithcardiogenicshockametaanalysis |