Mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

Purpose Cardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality. In refractory shock, it is unclear if mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices improve survival. We conducted a network meta-analysis to determine which MCS devices confers greatest benefit. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases through 27 August 2023 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched studies (PSMs). We conducted frequentist network meta-analysis, investigating mortality (either 30 days or in-hospital) as the primary outcome. We assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool/Newcastle–Ottawa Scale) and as sensitivity analysis reconstructed survival data from published survival curves for a one-stage unadjusted individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using a stratified Cox model. Results We included 38 studies (48,749 patients), mostly reporting on patients with Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stages C–E cardiogenic shock. Compared with no MCS, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with intra-aortic balloon pump (ECMO-IABP; network odds ratio [OR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33–0.86, moderate certainty) was associated with lower mortality. There were no differences in mortality between ECMO, IABP, microaxial ventricular assist device (mVAD), ECMO-mVAD, centrifugal VAD, or mVAD-IABP and no MCS (all very low certainty). Our one-stage IPD survival meta-analysis based on the stratified Cox model found only ECMO-IABP was associated with lower mortality (hazard ratio, HR, 0.55, 95% CI 0.46–0.66). Conclusion In patients with cardiogenic shock, ECMO-IABP may reduce mortality, while other MCS devices did not reduce mortality. However, this must be interpreted within the context of inter-study heterogeneity and limited certainty of evidence.