Suppr超能文献

体外膜肺氧合(VA-ECMO)患者中使用Impella与主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)进行左心室卸载:一项系统评价和荟萃分析

Left Ventricular Unloading With Impella Versus IABP in Patients With VA-ECMO: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Gandhi Kruti D, Moras Errol C, Niroula Shailesh, Lopez Persio D, Aggarwal Devika, Bhatia Kirtipal, Balboul Yoni, Daibes Joseph, Correa Ashish, Dominguez Abel Casso, Birati Edo Y, Baran David A, Serrao Gregory, Mahmood Kiran, Vallabhajosyula Saraschandra, Fox Arieh

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Morningside/West, New York, New York.

Department of Internal Medicine, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 2023 Dec 1;208:53-59. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.09.023. Epub 2023 Oct 7.

Abstract

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) use for circulatory support in cardiogenic shock results in increased left ventricular (LV) afterload. The use of concomitant Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) have been proposed as adjunct devices for LV unloading. The authors sought to compare head-to-head efficacy and safety outcomes between the 2 LV unloading strategies. We conducted a search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing the use of Impella to IABP in patients on VA-ECMO. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, stroke, limb ischemia, need for continuous renal replacement therapy, major bleeding, and hemolysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval and heterogeneity statistic I were calculated using a random-effects model. A total of 7 observational studies with 698 patients were included. Patients on VA-ECMO unloaded with Impella vs IABP had similar risk of short-term all-cause mortality, defined as either 30-day or in-hospital mortality- 60.8% vs 64.9% (RR 0.93 [0.71 to 1.21], I = 71%). No significant difference was observed in transition to durable LV assist devices/cardiac transplantation, continuous renal replacement therapy initiation, stroke, or limb ischemia between the 2 strategies. However, the use of VA-ECMO with Impella was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (57.2% vs 39.7%) (RR 1.66 [1.12 to 2.44], I = 82%) and hemolysis (31% vs 7%) (RR 4.61 [1.24 to 17.17], I2 = 66%) compared with VA-ECMO, along with IABP. In conclusion, in patients requiring VA-ECMO for circulatory support, the concomitant use of Impella or IABP had comparable short-term mortality. However, Impella use was associated with increased risk of major bleeding and hemolysis.

摘要

静脉-动脉体外膜肺氧合(VA-ECMO)用于心源性休克的循环支持会导致左心室(LV)后负荷增加。有人提出使用Impella或主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)作为辅助装置来减轻左心室负荷。作者试图比较这两种左心室减负策略的直接疗效和安全性结果。我们检索了Medline、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库,以确定比较在接受VA-ECMO治疗的患者中使用Impella与IABP的研究。感兴趣的主要结局是住院死亡率。次要结局包括过渡到持久的左心室辅助装置/心脏移植、中风、肢体缺血、需要持续肾脏替代治疗、大出血和溶血。使用随机效应模型计算了95%置信区间的合并风险比(RRs)和异质性统计量I。共纳入7项观察性研究,涉及698例患者。接受VA-ECMO治疗且使用Impella与使用IABP的患者短期全因死亡风险相似,短期全因死亡定义为30天或住院死亡率,分别为60.8%和64.9%(RR 0.93[0.71至1.21],I = 71%)。在两种策略之间,向持久的左心室辅助装置/心脏移植过渡、开始持续肾脏替代治疗、中风或肢体缺血方面未观察到显著差异。然而,与使用VA-ECMO联合IABP相比,使用VA-ECMO联合Impella与大出血风险增加(57.2%对39.7%)(RR 1.66[1.12至2.44],I = 82%)和溶血风险增加(31%对7%)(RR 4.61[1.24至17.17],I² = 66%)相关。总之,在需要VA-ECMO进行循环支持的患者中,同时使用Impella或IABP的短期死亡率相当。然而,使用Impella与大出血和溶血风险增加相关。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验