Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies
Pooled result · MortalityResult — go to the resultNetwork OR 0.54 95% CI 0.33–0.86Authors' conclusion
In patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO-IABP may reduce mortality, while other MCS devices did not reduce mortality.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with cardiogenic shock, mostly SCAI shock stages C-E
- Participants
- 48,749 patients · 38 studies
- Comparison
- Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices vs no MCS
- Outcome
- Mortality (30 days or in-hospital)
Methodological detailsfrequentist network meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis: one-stage unadjusted individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (stratified Cox model) from reconstructed survival curves
- Frequentist network meta-analysis
- Sensitivity analysis: one-stage unadjusted IPD meta-analysis (stratified Cox model) from reconstructed survival curves
Pooled result
Mortality
Network OR
0.54
95% CI 0.33–0.86
ECMO-IABP vs No MCS
network OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.33–0.86)
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
| Outcome | HR for death (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Mortality, one-stage IPD survival meta-analysis (stratified Cox model; sensitivity analysis)ECMO-IABP vs No MCS · only ECMO-IABP associated with lower mortality | 0.55 (0.46–0.66) | |
| 0.512HR for death (log scale) |
- Mortality, one-stage IPD survival meta-analysis (stratified Cox model; sensitivity analysis): reconstructed survival data from published survival curves; unadjusted
Original publication
Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies. Intensive Care Med. Published 11 January 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →