• Medicine · Mar 2021

    Support with Impella versus intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Lingzhang Rao, Xianli Huang, and Jinlan Luo.
    • Department of Cardiology, Wuhan Wuchang Hospital, Wuchang Hospital Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Hubei, China.
    • Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Mar 26; 100 (12): e25159e25159.

    BackgroundThe survival benefit and safety of Impella support versus intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock were investigated in several observational trials that revealed mixed results. Thus, in order to provide new evidence-based medical evidence for clinical treatment, we undertook a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of Impella versus IABP in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.MethodsWe will search the EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library from inception to Mar 2021 to retrieve relevant studies. Two independent authors will extract the information from the selected studies. Disagreements will be resolved through a discussion with a third review author. The outcomes include mortality and complications. The quality of randomized trials will be assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies - of Interventions for non-randomized, observational studies. Review Manager software (v 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration) will be used for the meta-analysis.ResultsThe present meta-analysis will compare the efficacy and safety of Impella versus IABP in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.ConclusionsThe results of our review will be reported strictly following the PRISMA criteria and the review will add to the existing literature by showing compelling evidence and improved guidance in clinic settings.Osf Registration Number10.17605/OSF.IO/SKEQ7.Ethics And DisseminationEthical approval and patient consent are not required because this study is a literature-based study. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…