• Francesco Romeo, Maria Cristina Acconcia, Domenico Sergi, Alessia Romeo, Gian Franco Gensini, Flavia Chiarotti, and Quintilio Caretta.
• Department of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Rome, Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
• Int. J. Cardiol. 2013 Sep 1; 167 (5): 1783-93.

BackgroundAlthough controversial, using prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been reported to be effective by numerous registry studies. However, conflicting findings were observed in observational studies (Obs.) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).ObjectiveThe purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the impact of IABP on in-hospital deaths, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACCE), access-site complications and stroke in high-risk PCI cases from Obs. and RCTs published from 1st January, 1990 to 31st March, 2012 and indexed in PubMed.Methods And ResultsWe retrieved 1125 studies from the database; 11 studies compared the effects of IABP support, i.e., prophylactic administration (P-IABP) vs. no support (No-IABP), in high-risk patients undergoing PCI. These studies were included in the meta-analysis. We then calculated risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) between the two groups of patients (P-IABP vs. No-IABP). We did not observe significant in-hospital mortality, MACCE, access-site complications or stroke differences in the RRs and RDs of the two groups.ConclusionsThe results suggest that PCI plus P-IABP support does not result in reduced in-hospital mortality or MACCE nor in significant higher access-site complications or stroke incidence compared with PCI alone in patients at high risk for peri-procedural PCI complications.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

23 keywords...

hide…