Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33677732›Full record

ReviewHeart failure reviews2022

Mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock not secondary to cardiotomy: a network meta-analysis.

Stefano Benenati, Matteo Toma, Claudia Canale, Rocco Vergallo, Roberta Della Bona, Davide Ricci, Marco Canepa, Gabriele Crimi, Francesco Santini, Pietro Ameri and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Review in Heart failure reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stefano BenenatiCardiovascular Disease Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Matteo TomaCardiovascular Disease Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Claudia CanaleCardiovascular Disease Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Rocco VergalloDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Roma, Italy.
Roberta Della BonaCardiovascular Disease Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Davide RicciCardiac Surgery Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Marco CanepaCardiovascular Disease Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Gabriele CrimiCardiovascular Disease Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Francesco SantiniCardiac Surgery Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Pietro AmeriCardiovascular Disease Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy. pietroameri@unige.it.ORCID 0000-0001-7167-7287
Italo PortoCardiovascular Disease Unit, IRCCS Policlinic Hospital San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Ospedale Policlinico San Martino · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare the efficacy and safety of different mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in CS. A total of 24 studies (7 randomized controlled trials-RCTs-and 17 non-RCTs) involving 11,117 patients were entered in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were stroke and bleeding (requiring transfusion and/or intracranial and/or fatal). Compared with no MCS, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) reduced 30-day mortality when used both alone (OR 0.37, 95% CrI 0.15-0.90) and together with the micro-axial pump Impella (OR 0.13, 95% CrI 0.02-0.80) or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (OR 0.19, 95% CrI 0.05-0.63), although the relevant articles were affected by significant publication bias. Consistent results were obtained in a sensitivity analysis including only studies of CS due to myocardial infarction. After halving the weight of studies with a non-RCT design, only the benefit of ECMO + IABP on 30-day mortality was maintained (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.057-0.76). The risk of bleeding was increased by TandemHeart (OR 13, 95% CrI 3.50-59), Impella (OR 5, 95% CrI 1.60-18), and IABP (OR 2.2, 95% CrI 1.10-4.4). No significant differences were found across MCS strategies regarding stroke. Although limited by important quality issues, the studies performed so far indicate that ECMO, especially if combined with Impella or IABP, reduces short-term mortality in CS. MCS increases the hazard of bleeding.

Indexed as

Heart-Assist DevicesStrokeBayes TheoremHumansIntra-Aortic Balloon PumpingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicShock, CardiogenicTreatment OutcomeCardiogenic shockExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationImpellaIntra-aortic balloon pumpMechanical circulatory supportTandemHeart

Identifiers

PMID33677732
PMCPMC9033692
OpenAlexW3135720933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.