-
Something wrong with this record ?
Temporary mechanical circulatory support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials with 6-month follow-up
H. Thiele, JE. Møller, JPS. Henriques, M. Bogerd, M. Seyfarth, D. Burkhoff, P. Ostadal, R. Rokyta, J. Belohlavek, S. Massberg, M. Flather, M. Hochadel, S. Schneider, S. Desch, A. Freund, H. Eiskjær, N. Mangner, J. Pöss, A. Polzin, PC. Schulze, C....
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Journal Article, Meta-Analysis
NLK
ProQuest Central
from 1992-01-04 to 3 months ago
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
from 1992-01-04 to 3 months ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 1992-01-04 to 3 months ago
Family Health Database (ProQuest)
from 1992-01-04 to 3 months ago
Psychology Database (ProQuest)
from 1992-01-04 to 3 months ago
Health Management Database (ProQuest)
from 1992-01-04 to 3 months ago
Public Health Database (ProQuest)
from 1992-01-04 to 3 months ago
- MeSH
- Myocardial Infarction * mortality complications MeSH
- Shock, Cardiogenic * therapy mortality etiology MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation * methods MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Heart-Assist Devices * MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Meta-Analysis MeSH
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are being increasingly used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) despite conflicting evidence regarding their effect on mortality. We aimed to ascertain the effect of early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control treatment on 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS. METHODS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials of potential interest were identified, without language restriction, by querying the electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, up to Jan 26, 2024. All randomised trials with 6-month mortality data comparing early routine active MCS (directly in the catheterisation laboratory after randomisation) versus control in patients with AMICS were included. The primary outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS treated with early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control, with a focus on device type (loading, such as venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO] vs unloading) and patient selection. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the primary outcome measure were calculated using Cox regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024504295. FINDINGS: Nine reports of randomised controlled trials (n=1114 patients) were evaluated in detail. Overall, four randomised controlled trials (n=611 patients) compared VA-ECMO with a control treatment and five randomised controlled trials (n=503 patients) compared left ventricular unloading devices with a control treatment. Two randomised controlled trials also included patients who did not have AMICS, who were excluded (55 patients [44 who were treated with VA-ECMO and 11 who were treated with a left ventricular unloading device]). The median patient age was 65 years (IQR 57-73); 845 (79·9%) of 1058 patients with data were male and 213 (20·1%) were female. No significant benefit of early unselected MCS use on 6-month mortality was noted (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·74-1·03]; p=0·10). No significant differences were observed for left ventricular unloading devices versus control (0·80 [0·62-1·02]; p=0·075), and loading devices also had no effect on mortality (0·93 [0·75-1·17]; p=0·55). Patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality with MCS use (0·77 [0·61-0·97]; p=0·024). Major bleeding (odds ratio 2·64 [95% CI 1·91-3·65]) and vascular complications (4·43 [2·37-8·26]) were more frequent with MCS use than with control. INTERPRETATION: The use of active MCS devices in patients with AMICS did not reduce 6-month mortality (regardless of the device used) and increased major bleeding and vascular complications. However, patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality after MCS use. Therefore, the use of MCS should be restricted to certain patients only. FUNDING: The Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University and the Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.
2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University and Motol University Hospital Prague Czech Republic
Academic Medical Centre University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Netherlands
Cardiovascular Research Foundation New York NY USA
Clinical Institute University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark
Department of Cardiology Aarhus University Aarhus Denmark
Department of Cardiology Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University Leipzig Germany
Department of Cardiology Heart Center Wuppertal Witten Herdecke University Wuppertal Germany
Department of Cardiology Klinikum Ludwigshafen Ludwigshafen Germany
Department of Cardiology Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark
Department of Medicine 1 LMU University Hospital LMU Munich Germany
General University Hospital and 1st Medical School Charles University Prague Czech Republic
German Center for Cardiovascular Research Munich Heart Alliance Munich Germany
Institut für Herzinfarktforschung Ludwigshafen Germany
Norwich Medical School University of East Anglia Norwich UK
University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen Charles University Prague Czech Republic
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc24018917
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20241024111109.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 241015s2024 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01448-X $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39236726
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Thiele, Holger $u Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. Electronic address: holger.thiele@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
- 245 10
- $a Temporary mechanical circulatory support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials with 6-month follow-up / $c H. Thiele, JE. Møller, JPS. Henriques, M. Bogerd, M. Seyfarth, D. Burkhoff, P. Ostadal, R. Rokyta, J. Belohlavek, S. Massberg, M. Flather, M. Hochadel, S. Schneider, S. Desch, A. Freund, H. Eiskjær, N. Mangner, J. Pöss, A. Polzin, PC. Schulze, C. Skurk, U. Zeymer, C. Hassager, MCS Collaborator Scientific Group
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Percutaneous active mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are being increasingly used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) despite conflicting evidence regarding their effect on mortality. We aimed to ascertain the effect of early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control treatment on 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS. METHODS: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, randomised controlled trials of potential interest were identified, without language restriction, by querying the electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, up to Jan 26, 2024. All randomised trials with 6-month mortality data comparing early routine active MCS (directly in the catheterisation laboratory after randomisation) versus control in patients with AMICS were included. The primary outcome was 6-month all-cause mortality in patients with AMICS treated with early routine active percutaneous MCS versus control, with a focus on device type (loading, such as venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [VA-ECMO] vs unloading) and patient selection. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the primary outcome measure were calculated using Cox regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024504295. FINDINGS: Nine reports of randomised controlled trials (n=1114 patients) were evaluated in detail. Overall, four randomised controlled trials (n=611 patients) compared VA-ECMO with a control treatment and five randomised controlled trials (n=503 patients) compared left ventricular unloading devices with a control treatment. Two randomised controlled trials also included patients who did not have AMICS, who were excluded (55 patients [44 who were treated with VA-ECMO and 11 who were treated with a left ventricular unloading device]). The median patient age was 65 years (IQR 57-73); 845 (79·9%) of 1058 patients with data were male and 213 (20·1%) were female. No significant benefit of early unselected MCS use on 6-month mortality was noted (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·74-1·03]; p=0·10). No significant differences were observed for left ventricular unloading devices versus control (0·80 [0·62-1·02]; p=0·075), and loading devices also had no effect on mortality (0·93 [0·75-1·17]; p=0·55). Patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality with MCS use (0·77 [0·61-0·97]; p=0·024). Major bleeding (odds ratio 2·64 [95% CI 1·91-3·65]) and vascular complications (4·43 [2·37-8·26]) were more frequent with MCS use than with control. INTERPRETATION: The use of active MCS devices in patients with AMICS did not reduce 6-month mortality (regardless of the device used) and increased major bleeding and vascular complications. However, patients with ST-elevation cardiogenic shock without risk of hypoxic brain injury had a reduction in mortality after MCS use. Therefore, the use of MCS should be restricted to certain patients only. FUNDING: The Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University and the Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 12
- $a mimotělní membránová oxygenace $x metody $7 D015199
- 650 _2
- $a následné studie $7 D005500
- 650 12
- $a podpůrné srdeční systémy $7 D006353
- 650 12
- $a infarkt myokardu $x mortalita $x komplikace $7 D009203
- 650 _2
- $a randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma $7 D016032
- 650 12
- $a kardiogenní šok $x terapie $x mortalita $x etiologie $7 D012770
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a metaanalýza $7 D017418
- 700 1_
- $a Møller, Jacob E $u Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
- 700 1_
- $a Henriques, Jose P S $u Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Bogerd, Margriet $u Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- 700 1_
- $a Seyfarth, Melchior $u Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Wuppertal, Witten/Herdecke University, Wuppertal, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Burkhoff, Daniel $u Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, NY, USA
- 700 1_
- $a Ostadal, Petr $u Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Rokyta, Richard $u University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine Pilsen, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Belohlavek, Jan $u General University Hospital and 1st Medical School, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Massberg, Steffen $u Department of Medicine I, LMU University Hospital, LMU, Munich, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research, Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Flather, Marcus $u Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
- 700 1_
- $a Hochadel, Matthias $u Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Schneider, Steffen $u Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Desch, Steffen $u Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Freund, Anne $u Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Eiskjær, Hans $u Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
- 700 1_
- $a Mangner, Norman $u Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Heart Center Dresden, University Hospital, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Pöss, Janine $u Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Polzin, Amin $u Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Schulze, P Christian $u Department of Internal Medicine I, Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Medical Care, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Skurk, Carsten $u Department of Cardiology, Angiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Zeymer, Uwe $u Institut für Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany; Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Hassager, Christian $u Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet and Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- 710 2_
- $a MCS Collaborator Scientific Group
- 773 0_
- $w MED00010161 $t Lancet (London, England) $x 1474-547X $g Roč. 404, č. 10457 (2024), s. 1019-1028
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39236726 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20241015 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20241024111102 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2201646 $s 1230890
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 404 $c 10457 $d 1019-1028 $e 20240902 $i 1474-547X $m Lancet (London, England) $n Lancet $x MED00010161
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20241015
