SynthesisOpen heart2021
Comparative safety of percutaneous ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction-induced cardiogenic shock.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical circulatory support in CS: device or patient?Open heart · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relative safety of percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pVAD) and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction remain unknown.
methodsMultiple databases were searched to identify articles comparing pVAD and IABP. An unadjusted OR was used to calculate hard clinical outcomes and mortality differences on a random effect model.
resultsSeven studies comprising 26 726 patients (1110 in the pVAD group and 25 616 in the IABP group) were included. The odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68, p=<0.00001) and need for revascularisation (OR 0.16, 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.38, p=<0.0001) were significantly reduced in patients receiving pVAD compared with IABP. The odds of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.14 to 9.17, p=0.91), acute limb ischaemia (OR=2.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 15.66, p=0.33) and major bleeding (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 25.39, p=0.64) were not significantly different between the two groups. A sensitivity analysis based on the exclusion of the study with the largest weight showed no difference in the mortality difference between the two mechanical circulatory support devices.
conclusionsIn patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, there is no significant difference in the adjusted risk of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, stroke and limb ischaemia between the devices. Randomised trials are warranted to investigate further the safety and efficacy of these devices in patients with cardiogenic shock.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.