Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis assessing 30-days mortality

Abstract

Abstract Introduction Cardiogenic shock is linked with eminent morbidity and mortality despite advances in treatment modality. Adjuvant treatment modalities to provide mechanical haemodynamic support in the form of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or Impella are being used among patients with cardiogenic shock. The Impella prunes left ventricular preload, whereas, IABP persuades after load reduction and both contribute to improved cardiac output. A few underpowered randomised control trials (RCTs) and observational studies compared short term mortality benefit of Impella juxtaposed to IABP among patients with cardiogenic shock. Purpose A meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies researching the short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock comparing Impella to IABP was executed. Methods The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane were searched systematically to identify relevant RCTs and observational studies contrasting Impella to IABP and reporting 30-days mortality as outcomes. The search terms used were “Impella”, “IAPB”, “intra-aortic balloon pump” and all word variations were utilised. The search was conducted from the debut of the databases up to January 2020. Two reviewers independently and in tandem performed data screening and extraction from identified articles. Inverse variance method with Paule-Mandel estimator for tau2 and Hartung-Knapp adjustment was used to calculate Risk Ratio with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Furthermore, we calculated the 95% predictive interval for the pooled estimate. All statistical analysis for this meta-analysis was carried out using R statistical software version 3.6.2 using the package meta ( ). Additionally, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria were used to assess the certainty of evidence. Results Five studies constituting 728 patients were included in the final analysis. Two were RCTs (ISAR-SHOCK trial and IMPRESS in Severe Shock trial), one study was a propensity score matched observational study and two were unmatched observational studies. There was no difference in the risk of 30-days mortality in patients treated with Impella as compared to IABP [Risk Ratio: 0.97, 95% confidence interval: 0.66–1.41, I2: 32%]. To account for the heterogeneity, we calculated 95% predictive interval: 0.46–2.02. Thus, very low certainty of evidence concluded no difference in the risk of 30-days mortality among cardiogenic shock patients treated with Impella in opposition to IABP. Conclusion This meta-analysis comparing Impella juxtaposed with IABP demonstrated no difference in the risk of 30-days mortality among patients with cardiogenic shock. 30-days Mortality Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None