nach oben

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie

Erschienen in:

04.10.2022 | Review Article/Brief Review

Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

verfasst von: MD, MSc Shannon M. Fernando, MD Rebecca Mathew, PharmD, MPH, PhD Behnam Sadeghirad, MD Daniel Brodie, MD, PhD Emilie P. Belley-Côté, MD Holger Thiele, MD, MSc Sean van Diepen, MD, PhD Eddy Fan, MD Pietro Di Santo, MD Trevor Simard, MD Juan J. Russo, MD, MSc Alexandre Tran, MD, PhD Bruno Lévy, MD, PhD Alain Combes, MD, PhD Benjamin Hibbert, MD, MSc Bram Rochwerg

Erschienen in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie | Ausgabe 12/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the relative efficacy of supportive therapies (inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support [MCS]) for adult patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

Source

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis and searched six databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We evaluated inotropes, vasopressors, and MCS in separate networks. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to rate the certainty in findings. The critical outcome of interest was 30-day all-cause mortality.

Principal findings

We included 17 RCTs. Among inotropes (seven RCTs, 1,145 patients), levosimendan probably reduces mortality compared with placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.87; moderate certainty), but primarily in lower severity shock. Milrinone (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.39; low certainty) and dobutamine (OR, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.49; low certainty) may have no effect on mortality compared with placebo. With regard to MCS (eight RCTs, 856 patients), there may be no effect on mortality with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.28; low certainty) or percutaneous MCS (pMCS) (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.98; low certainty), compared with a strategy involving no MCS. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with less major bleeding compared with pMCS. We found only two RCTs evaluating vasopressors, yielding insufficient data for meta-analysis.

Conclusion

The results of this systematic review and network meta-analysis indicate that levosimendan reduces mortality compared with placebo among patients with low severity cardiogenic shock. Intra-aortic balloon pump and pMCS had no effect on mortality compared with a strategy of no MCS, but pMCS was associated with higher rates of major bleeding.

Study registration

Center for Open Science (https://osf.io/ky2gr); registered 10 November 2020

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017; 136: e232–68. https://doi.org/10.1161/cir.0000000000000525 CrossRefPubMed

Mebazaa A, Combes A, van Diepen S, et al. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44: 760–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5214-9 CrossRefPubMed

Thiele H, Ohman EM, de Waha-Thiele S, Zeymer U, Desch S. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 2671–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz363 CrossRefPubMed

Goldberg RJ, Samad NA, Yarzebski J, Gurwitz J, Bigelow C, Gore JM. Temporal trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1162–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199904153401504 CrossRefPubMed

Jung RG, Di Santo P, Mathew R, et al. Implications of myocardial infarction on management and outcome in cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc 2021; 10: e021570. https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.121.021570 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Delmas C, et al. Trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Heart Fail 2020; 22: 664–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1750 CrossRefPubMed

Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 625–34. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199908263410901

Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 2419–32. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1710261 CrossRefPubMed

Henry TD, Tomey MI, Tamis-Holland JE, et al. Invasive management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2021; 143: e815–29. https://doi.org/10.1161/cir.0000000000000959 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Levy B, Buzon J, Kimmoun A. Inotropes and vasopressors use in cardiogenic shock: when, which and how much? Curr Opin Crit Care 2019; 25: 384–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/mcc.0000000000000632 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Scheeren TW, Bakker J, Kaufmann T, et al. Current use of inotropes in circulatory shock. Ann Intensive Care 2021; 11: 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-021-00806-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Combes A, Price S, Slutsky AS, Brodie D. Temporary circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. Lancet 2020; 396: 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31047-3 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Ni hici T, Boardman HM, Baig K, et al. Mechanical assist devices for acute cardiogenic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 6: CD013002. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013002.pub2

14.

Uhlig K, Efremov L, Tongers J, et al. Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 11: CD009669. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd009669.pub4

15.

Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: this document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 94: 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28329 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 777–84. https://doi.org/10.7326/m14-2385 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Higgins JP, Savović, Page MJ, Sterne JA. Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (ROB 2.0), 2016. Available from URL: https://www.unisa.edu.au/contentassets/72bf75606a2b4abcaf7f17404af374ad/rob2-0_indiv_main_guidance.pdf (accessed July 2022).

19.

DerSimonian R, Laìrd N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1044 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins JP. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Methods 2012; 3: 111–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1045 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

White IR. Network meta-analysis. Stata J 2015; 15: 951–85.

24.

Fernando SM, Di Santo P, Sadeghirad B, et al. Targeted temperature management following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of temperature targets. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47: 1078–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06505-z CrossRefPubMed

25.

Fernando SM, Tran A, Sadeghirad B, et al. Noninvasive respiratory support following extubation in critically ill adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2022; 48: 137–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06581-1 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 2006; 101: 447–59. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214505000001302 CrossRef

27.

Yepes-Nuñez JJ, Li SA, Guyatt G, et al. Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2019; 115: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.018 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Brignardello-Petersen R, Bonner A, Alexander PE, et al. Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 93: 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.005 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Brignardello-Petersen R, Florez ID, Izcovich A, et al. GRADE approach to drawing conclusions from a network meta-analysis using a minimally contextualised framework. BMJ 2020; 371: m3900. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3900 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Santesso N, Glenton C, Dahm P, et al. GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 119: 126–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.014 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Bochaton T, Huot L, Elbaz M, et al. Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella® LP5.0 pump and an intra-aortic balloon pump for cardiogenic shock in acute myocardial infarction: the IMPELLA-STIC randomized study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2020; 113: 237–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acvd.2019.10.005

32.

Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, O'Neill WW, TandemHeart Investigators Group. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J 2006; 152: e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2006.05.031

33.

Caldicott LD, Hawley K, Heppell R, Woodmansey PA, Channer KS. Intravenous enoximone or dobutamine for severe heart failure after acute myocardial infarction: a randomized double-blind trial. Eur Heart J 1993; 14: 696–700. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/14.5.696 CrossRefPubMed

34.

De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 779–89. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0907118 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Fuhrmann JT, Schmeisser A, Schulze MR, et al. Levosimendan is superior to enoximone in refractory cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Crit Care Med 2008; 36: 2257–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181809846 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Husebye T, Eritsland J, Müller C, et al. Levosimendan in acute heart failure following primary percutaneous coronary intervention-treated acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Results from the LEAF trial: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Eur J Heart Fail 2013; 15: 565–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfs215

37.

Jia Z, Guo M, Zhang YQ, Liang HQ, Zhang LY, Song Y. Efficacy of intravenous levosimendan in patients with heart failure complicated by acute myocardial infarction. Cardiology 2014; 128: 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1159/000357864 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Levy B, Clere-Jehl R, Legras A, et al. Epinephrine versus norepinephrine for cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72: 173–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.051 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Mathew R, Di Santo P, Jung RG, et al. Milrinone as compared with dobutamine in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 516–25. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2026845 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Mebazaa A, Nieminen MS, Packer M, et al. Levosimendan vs dobutamine for patients with acute decompensated heart failure: the SURVIVE randomized trial. JAMA 2007; 297: 1883–91. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.17.1883 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Moiseyev VS, Põder P, Andrejevs N, et al. Safety and efficacy of a novel calcium sensitizer, levosimendan, in patients with left ventricular failure due to an acute myocardial infarction. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study (RUSSLAN). Eur Heart J 2002; 23: 1422–32. https://doi.org/10.1053/euhj.2001.3158

42.

Ohman EM, Nanas J, Stomel RJ, et al. Thrombolysis and counterpulsation to improve survival in myocardial infarction complicated by hypotension and suspected cardiogenic shock or heart failure: results of the TACTICS Trial. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2005; 19: 33–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-005-0938-0 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69: 278–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022 CrossRefPubMed

44.

Prondzinsky R, Lemm H, Swyter M, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP SHOCK Trial for attenuation of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Crit Care Med 2010; 38: 152–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181b78671 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52: 1584–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.065 CrossRefPubMed

46.

Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, et al. Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2005; 26: 1276–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi161 CrossRefPubMed

47.

Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1287–96. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1208410 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2022; 145: e895–1032. https://doi.org/10.1161/cir.0000000000001063 CrossRefPubMed

49.

Cholley B, Levy B, Fellahi JL, et al. Levosimendan in the light of the results of the recent randomized controlled trials: an expert opinion paper. Crit Care 2019; 23: 385. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2674-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Felker GM, Benza RL, Chandler AB, et al. Heart failure etiology and response to milrinone in decompensated heart failure: results from the OPTIME-CHF study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41: 997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(02)02968-6 CrossRefPubMed

51.

Burger AJ, Horton DP, LeJemtel T, et al. Effect of nesiritide (B-type natriuretic peptide) and dobutamine on ventricular arrhythmias in the treatment of patients with acutely decompensated congestive heart failure: the PRECEDENT study. Am Heart J 2002; 144: 1102–8. https://doi.org/10.1067/mhj.2002.125620 CrossRefPubMed

52.

Squara P, Hollenberg S, Payen D. Reconsidering vasopressors for cardiogenic shock: everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Chest 2019; 156: 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.03.020 CrossRefPubMed

53.

Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2017; 38: 3523–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx363 CrossRefPubMed

54.

Fernando SM, Qureshi D, Tanuseputro P, et al. Mortality and costs following extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in critically ill adults: a population-based cohort study. Intensive Care Med 2019; 45: 1580–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05766-z CrossRefPubMed

55.

Fernando SM, Qureshi D, Tanuseputro P, et al. Long-term mortality and costs following use of Impella® for mechanical circulatory support: a population-based cohort study. Can J Anesth 2020; 67: 1728–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01755-9 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
verfasst von: MD, MSc Shannon M. Fernando
MD Rebecca Mathew
PharmD, MPH, PhD Behnam Sadeghirad
MD Daniel Brodie
MD, PhD Emilie P. Belley-Côté
MD Holger Thiele
MD, MSc Sean van Diepen
MD, PhD Eddy Fan
MD Pietro Di Santo
MD Trevor Simard
MD Juan J. Russo
MD, MSc Alexandre Tran
MD, PhD Bruno Lévy
MD, PhD Alain Combes
MD, PhD Benjamin Hibbert
MD, MSc Bram Rochwerg
Publikationsdatum: 04.10.2022
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie / Ausgabe 12/2022
Print ISSN: 0832-610X
Elektronische ISSN: 1496-8975
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-022-02337-7

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

20.03.2023 | Petechien | Nachrichten

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Hauptrubriken

Service

Fachgebiete

Themen

Sammlungen

Springer Medizin

Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Source

Principal findings

Conclusion

Study registration

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

Mechanische Erklärung für Petechien zum Sepsis-Ausschluss ungeeignet

Fünf „knackige“ Empfehlungen zum akuten Rückenschmerz

Anaphylaxie: Wer bekommt ein Notfall-Set, wer sogar zwei?

Gewichthebetest lässt auf Schmerzniveau im Alltag schließen

Update AINS

Update AINS

Hauptrubriken

Service

Fachgebiete

Themen

Sammlungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Source

Principal findings

Conclusion

Study registration

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2022

The impact of head and neck radiation on airway management: a retrospective data review

Novel use of transesophageal echocardiography to optimize hemodynamics and patient positioning during prone scoliosis surgery and safety considerations in the setting of intraoperative neuromonitoring: a case report

Association of intraoperative dexmedetomidine use with postoperative hypotension in unilateral hip and knee arthroplasties: a historical cohort study

No community left behind: advancing rural anesthesia, surgery, and obstetric care in Canada

Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis

Changes in sensory block level during a programmed intermittent epidural bolus regimen for labour analgesia: a prospective observational cohort study

Neu im Fachgebiet AINS

Mechanische Erklärung für Petechien zum Sepsis-Ausschluss ungeeignet

Fünf „knackige“ Empfehlungen zum akuten Rückenschmerz

Anaphylaxie: Wer bekommt ein Notfall-Set, wer sogar zwei?

Gewichthebetest lässt auf Schmerzniveau im Alltag schließen

Update AINS

Update AINS