Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) is currently the most commonly used mechanical assist device for patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction. Although there has been only limited evidence from randomised controlled trials, the previous guidelines of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) strongly recommended the use of the IABP in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock on the basis of pathophysiological considerations, non-randomised trials and registry data. The recent guidelines downgraded the recommendation based on a meta-analysis which could only include non-randomised trials showing conflicting results. Up to now, there have been no guideline recommendations and no actual meta-analysis including the results of the large randomised multicentre IABP-SHOCK II Trial which showed no survival benefit with IABP support. This systematic review is an update of the review published in 2011. OBJECTIVES To evaluate, in terms of efficacy and safety, the effect of IABP versus non-IABP or other assist devices guideline compliant standard therapy on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SEARCH METHODS Searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid), LILACS, IndMed and KoreaMed, registers of ongoing trials and proceedings of conferences were updated in October 2013. Reference lists were scanned and experts in the field contacted to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials on patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data collection and analysis were performed according to the published protocol. Individual patient data were provided for six trials and merged with aggregate data. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS Seven eligible studies were identified from a total of 2314 references. One new study with 600 patients was added to the original review. Four trials compared IABP to standard treatment and three to other percutaneous left assist devices (LVAD). Data from a total of 790 patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock were included in the updated meta-analysis: 406 patients were treated with IABP and 384 patients served as controls; 339 patients were treated without assisting devices and 45 patients with other LVAD. The HR for all-cause 30-day mortality of 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.19) provided no evidence for a survival benefit. Different non-fatal cardiovascular events were reported in five trials. During hospitalisation, 11 and 4 out of 364 patients from the intervention groups suffered from reinfarction or stroke, respectively. Altogether 5 out of 363 patients from the control group suffered from reinfarction or stroke. Reocclusion was treated with subsequent re-revascularization in 6 out of 352 patients from the intervention group and 13 out of 353 patients of the control group. The high incidence of complications such as moderate and severe bleeding or infection in the control groups has to be attributed to interventions with other LVAD. Possible reasons for bias were more frequent in small studies with high cross-over rates, early stopping and the inclusion of patients with IABP at randomisation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Available evidence suggests that IABP may have a beneficial effect on some haemodynamic parameters. However, this did not result in survival benefits so there is no convincing randomised data to support the use of IABP in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.