34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump to reduce mortality in coronary artery bypass graft: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The intra-aortic balloon pump is routinely used in cardiac surgery; however, its impact on outcome is still a matter of debate and several randomized trials have been published recently. We perform an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump in adult patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

          Methods

          Potentially eligible trials were identified by searching the Medline, Embase, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge and The Cochrane Library. Searches were not restricted by language or publication status and were updated in August 2014. Randomized controlled trials on preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting either with or without cardiopulmonary bypass were identified. The primary end point was mortality at the longest follow-up available and the secondary end point was 30-day mortality.

          Results

          The eight included randomized clinical trials enrolled 625 patients (312 to the intra-aortic balloon pump group and 313 to control). The use of intra-aortic balloon pump was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of mortality (11 of 312 (3.5%) versus 33 of 313 (11%), risk ratio = 0.38 (0.20 to 0.73), P for effect = 0.004, P for heterogeneity = 0.7, I-square = 0%, with eight studies included). The benefit on mortality reduction was confirmed restricting the analysis to trials with low risk of bias, to those reporting 30-day follow-up and to patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

          Conclusions

          Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump reduces perioperative and 30-day mortality in high-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0728-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial.

          In current international guidelines the recommendation for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use has been downgraded in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction on the basis of registry data. In the largest randomised trial (IABP-SHOCK II), IABP support did not reduce 30 day mortality compared with control. However, previous trials in cardiogenic shock showed a mortality benefit only at extended follow-up. The present analysis therefore reports 6 and 12 month results. The IABP-SHOCK II trial was a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who were undergoing early revascularisation and optimum medical therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to IABP versus control via a central web-based system. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30 day all-cause mortality, but 6 and 12 month follow-up was done in addition to quality-of-life assessment for all survivors with the Euroqol-5D questionnaire. A masked central committee adjudicated clinical outcomes. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036. Between June 16, 2009, and March 3, 2012, 600 patients were assigned to IABP (n=301) or control (n=299). Of 595 patients completing 12 month follow-up, 155 (52%) of 299 patients in the IABP group and 152 (51%) of 296 patients in the control group had died (relative risk [RR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·86-1·18, p=0·91). There were no significant differences in reinfarction (RR 2·60, 95% CI 0·95-7·10, p=0·05), recurrent revascularisation (0·91, 0·58-1·41, p=0·77), or stroke (1·50, 0·25-8·84, p=1·00). For survivors, quality-of-life measures including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression did not differ significantly between study groups. In patients undergoing early revascularisation for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, IABP did not reduce 12 month all-cause mortality. German Research Foundation; German Heart Research Foundation; German Cardiac Society; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte; University of Leipzig--Heart Centre; Maquet Cardiopulmonary; Teleflex Medical. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Randomized Evidence for Reduction of Perioperative Mortality

            With more than 220 million major surgical procedures performed annually, perioperative interventions leading to even minor mortality reductions would save thousands of lives per year. This international consensus conference aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions that increase or reduce perioperative mortality as suggested by randomized evidence. A web-based international consensus conference. More than 1,000 physicians from 77 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference. Systematic literature searches (MEDLINE/PubMed, June 8, 2011) were used to identify the papers with a statistically significant effect on mortality together with contacts with experts. Interventions were considered eligible for evaluation if they (1) were published in peer-reviewed journals, (2) dealt with a nonsurgical intervention (drug/technique/strategy) in adult patients undergoing surgery, and (3) provided a statistically significant mortality increase or reduction as suggested by a randomized trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials. Fourteen interventions that might change perioperative mortality in adult surgery were identified. Interventions that might reduce mortality include chlorhexidine oral rinse, clonidine, insulin, intra-aortic balloon pump, leukodepletion, levosimendan, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive respiratory support, hemodynamic optimization, oxygen, selective decontamination of the digestive tract, and volatile anesthetics. In contrast, aprotinin and extended-release metoprolol might increase mortality. Future research and health care funding should be directed toward studying and evaluating these interventions. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The rough guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses

              The hierarchy of evidence based medicine postulates that systematic reviews of homogenous randomized trials represent one of the uppermost levels of clinical evidence. Indeed, the current overwhelming role of systematic reviews, meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses in evidence based heath care calls for a thorough knowledge of the pros and cons of these study designs, even for the busy clinician. Despite this sore need, few succinct but thorough resources are available to guide users or would-be authors of systematic reviews. This article provides a rough guide to reading and, summarily, designing and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                zangrillo.alberto@hsr.it
                pappalardo.federico@hsr.it
                roberto.dossi87@gmail.com
                ambra.diprima@gmail.com
                antigone47@libero.itl
                greco.teresa@hotmail.it
                monaco.fabrizio@hsr.it
                mmusu@medicina.unica.it
                gabriele.finco@gmail.com
                landoni.giovanni@hsr.it
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                14 January 2015
                14 January 2015
                2015
                : 19
                : 1
                : 10
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, Milan, 20132 Italy
                [ ]Vita-Salute University San Raffaele of Milan, Via Olgettina, 58, 20132 Milan, Italy
                [ ]Department of Medical Sciences “M. Aresu”, Cagliari University, Bivio di Sestu 554, 09042 Monserrato, Cagliari Italy
                Article
                728
                10.1186/s13054-014-0728-1
                4316767
                25588568
                b878e83e-cfa4-4a18-82b3-437c937b4a26
                © Zangrillo et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 29 August 2014
                : 23 December 2014
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article