Percutaneous left ventricular assist device vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiovascular intervention: A meta-analysis.
Chronic Dis Transl Med
; 4(4): 260-267, 2018 Dec.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-30603744
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE:
Although controversial, the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) are widely used for initial hemodynamic stabilization. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of these two devices in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation.METHODS:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model.RESULTS:
The quantitative analysis included 4 RCTs and 2 observational studies. A total of 348 patients received PLVAD and 340 received IABP. Meta-analysis revealed that early mortality rates (in-hospital or 30-day) did not differ between the PLVAD and IABP groups (relative risk (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.70-1.51, P = 0.89). Significant differences were observed between the two groups in the composite, in-hospital, non-major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate (RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.01-1.68, P = 0.04).CONCLUSIONS:
Compared with IABP, PLVAD with active circulatory support did not improve early survival in those with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing either PCI or VT ablation, but increased the in-hospital non-MACCE rate.
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
/
Etiology_studies
/
Observational_studies
/
Systematic_reviews
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2018
Tipo de documento:
Article