The outcomes of intra-aortic balloon pump usage in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a comprehensive meta-analysis of 33 clinical trials and 18,889 patients
Authors Fan Z, Gao X, Chen L, Ding G, Shao M, Ji Q, Zhu H, Ren Y, Chen S, Tian N
Received 6 December 2015
Accepted for publication 26 January 2016
Published 16 March 2016 Volume 2016:10 Pages 297—312
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Naifeng Liu
Zhong-Guo Fan,1,* Xiao-Fei Gao,1,2,* Li-Wen Chen,1 Xiao-Bo Li,1,2 Ming-Xue Shao,1,2 Qian Ji,1 Hao Zhu,1 Yi-Zhi Ren,1 Shao-Liang Chen,1,2 Nai-Liang Tian1,2
1Department of Cardiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, 2Department of Cardiology, Nanjing Heart Center, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China
*These authors contributed equally to this work
Background: The effects of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) usage in patients with acute myocardial infarction remain controversial. This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of IABP usage in these patients.
Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and other internet sources were searched for relevant clinical trials. The primary efficacy endpoints (in-hospital, midterm, and long-term mortality) and secondary endpoints (reinfarction, recurrent ischemia, and new heart failure in the hospital) as well as safety endpoints (severe bleeding requiring blood transfusion and stroke in-hospital) were subsequently analyzed.
Results: Thirty-three clinical trials involving 18,889 patients were identified. The risk of long-term mortality in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction was significantly decreased following IABP use (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48–0.91, P=0.010). Both in-hospital and midterm mortality did not differ significantly between the IABP use group and no IABP use group (in-hospital: OR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.59–1.28, P=0.479; midterm: OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.53–2.38, P=0.768). IABP insertion was not associated with the risk reduction of reinfarction, recurrent ischemia, or new heart failure. However, IABP use increased the risk of severe bleeding requiring blood transfusion (OR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.29–3.25, P=0.002) and stroke (OR 1.71, 95% CI: 1.04–2.82, P=0.035). In the thrombolytic therapy and cardiogenic shock subgroups, reduced mortality rates following IABP use were observed.
Conclusion: IABP insertion is associated with feasible benefits with respect to long-term survival rates in patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction, particularly those suffering from cardiogenic shock and receiving thrombolytic therapy, but at the cost of higher incidence of severe bleeding and stroke.
Keywords: intra-aortic balloon pump, acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, thrombolytic therapy, meta-analysis
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]