SynthesisIntensive care medicine2024
Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies.
Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concomitant Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Throughout Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Meta-Analysis of Cohorts.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- IMPELLA COMPARED TO VENOARTERIAL EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED STUDIES.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2025Pooled it
- Predictors of device-related adverse events in patients with intra-aortic ballon pump or microaxial flow pump for cardiogenic shock.JHLT open · 2026Article
- Recommendations in Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Post Resuscitation Care Via An International, Modified Delphi Approach.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Review
- Is it Time to Upgrade Neuromonitoring in ECPR Recipients to Evaluate Cerebral Perfusion Imbalances Adequately?Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock: A Narrative Review in Light of Recent Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a target trial emulation of the ELSO registry.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- A multivariate and retrospective analysis of the impact of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in Open-Heart surgery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Management of cardiogenic shock: state-of-the-art.Intensive care medicine · 2024Review
- Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: microaxial flow pumps for all and VA-ECMO consigned to the museum?Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- What's new in VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality. In refractory shock, it is unclear if mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices improve survival. We conducted a network meta-analysis to determine which MCS devices confers greatest benefit.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases through 27 August 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched studies (PSMs). We conducted frequentist network meta-analysis, investigating mortality (either 30 days or in-hospital) as the primary outcome. We assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool/Newcastle-Ottawa Scale) and as sensitivity analysis reconstructed survival data from published survival curves for a one-stage unadjusted individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using a stratified Cox model.
resultsWe included 38 studies (48,749 patients), mostly reporting on patients with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stages C-E cardiogenic shock. Compared with no MCS, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with intra-aortic balloon pump (ECMO-IABP; network odds ratio [OR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.86, moderate certainty) was associated with lower mortality. There were no differences in mortality between ECMO, IABP, microaxial ventricular assist device (mVAD), ECMO-mVAD, centrifugal VAD, or mVAD-IABP and no MCS (all very low certainty). Our one-stage IPD survival meta-analysis based on the stratified Cox model found only ECMO-IABP was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, HR, 0.55, 95% CI 0.46-0.66).
conclusionIn patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO-IABP may reduce mortality, while other MCS devices did not reduce mortality. However, this must be interpreted within the context of inter-study heterogeneity and limited certainty of evidence.
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.