Lee Jinho, Lee Jung-Bok, Kim Ah-Ram, Hyun Junho, Lee Sang-Eun, Kim Min-Seok
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Thorac Dis. 2023 Mar 31;15(3):1115-1123. doi: 10.21037/jtd-22-1139. Epub 2023 Mar 2.
Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring with pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) can be useful in the assessment of changes in cardiac function and hemodynamic status; however, the benefits of PAC in the management of cardiogenic shock are not known well.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials, comparing in-hospital mortality between PAC and non-PAC groups of cardiogenic shock patients with various underlying causes. Articles were obtained from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We reviewed titles, abstracts, and full articles and evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework. We used a random-effects model to compare studies in terms of in-hospital mortality findings.
We included twelve articles in our meta-analysis. Mortality among patients with cardiogenic shock was not significantly different between the PAC and the non-PAC groups [risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73-1.02, I=100%, P<0.01]. Two studies investigating cardiogenic shock caused by acute decompensated heart failure determined lower in-hospital mortality in the PAC group than in the non-PAC group (RR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28-0.87, I=45%, P=0.18). Six studies investigating cardiogenic shock of any cause determined lower in-hospital mortality in the PAC group than in the non-PAC group (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72-0.97, I=99%, P<0.01). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the PAC and non-PAC groups of patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute coronary syndrome (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.81-1.25, I=99%, P<0.01).
Overall, our meta-analysis demonstrated no significant association between PAC monitoring and in-hospital mortality among patients managed for cardiogenic shock. The use of PAC in the management of cardiogenic shock caused by acute decompensated heart failure was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, but there was no association between PAC monitoring and in-hospital mortality among patients with cardiogenic shock caused by acute coronary syndrome.
心源性休克与显著的发病率和死亡率相关。采用肺动脉导管插入术(PAC)进行有创血流动力学监测有助于评估心功能和血流动力学状态的变化;然而,PAC在心源性休克管理中的益处尚不清楚。
我们对观察性研究和随机对照试验进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,比较了不同潜在病因的心源性休克患者PAC组和非PAC组的院内死亡率。文章来源于MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane CENTRAL。我们查阅了标题、摘要和全文,并使用GRADE(推荐分级、评估、制定和评价)框架评估证据质量。我们采用随机效应模型根据院内死亡率结果比较各项研究。
我们的荟萃分析纳入了12篇文章。心源性休克患者中,PAC组和非PAC组的死亡率无显著差异[风险比(RR)0.86,95%置信区间(CI):0.73 - 1.02,I = 100%,P < 0.01]。两项针对急性失代偿性心力衰竭所致心源性休克的研究显示,PAC组的院内死亡率低于非PAC组(RR 0.49,95% CI:0.28 - 0.87,I = 45%,P = 0.18)。六项针对任何病因的心源性休克的研究显示,PAC组的院内死亡率低于非PAC组(RR 0.84,95% CI:0.72 - 0.97,I = 99%,P < 0.01)。急性冠状动脉综合征继发的心源性休克患者中,PAC组和非PAC组的院内死亡率无显著差异(RR 1.01,95% CI:0.81 - 1.25,I = 99%,P < 0.01)。
总体而言,我们的荟萃分析表明,对于接受心源性休克治疗的患者,PAC监测与院内死亡率之间无显著关联。PAC用于急性失代偿性心力衰竭所致心源性休克的管理与较低的院内死亡率相关,但对于急性冠状动脉综合征所致心源性休克患者,PAC监测与院内死亡率之间无关联。