Meta-analysis reveals IABP may improve survival in heart failure–related cardiogenic shock patients, suggesting clinical utility.
Pathophysiologic assumptions and clinical data frame a promising role for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in heart failure–related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS). Currently, two randomized clinical trials (RCT) exploring this hypothesis have been published, yielding inconclusive results. We thus designed this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of IABP in HF-CS. Randomized clinical trials comparing IABP to standard of care (SoC) in patients with HF-CS were included. The study endpoint was survival or successful bridge to heart replacement therapies (HRT) at 60 days. Meta-analytic results are presented as risk difference (RD) and odds ratio (OR). Two RCTs were included (IABP group: 69 patients; SoC group: 64 patients). Patients were in Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) CS stage B in 21.1% and in stages C/D in 78.9%. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with a nonsignificant trend for better 60 day survival or successful bridge to HRT with moderate heterogeneity between studies (RD: 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]:−0.02 to 0.27; p = 0.096; I 2 = 49%; OR: 1.94; 95% CI: 0.87–4.32). Subgroup testing demonstrated a significantly improved 60 day survival or successful bridge to HRT with IABP in the SCAI C/D cohort with low heterogeneity (RD: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.01–0.34; p = 0.040; I 2 = 14%; OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.02–6.23), but not in the SCAI B cohort (RD: 0.06; 95% CI: −0.36 to 0.24; p = 0.712; I 2 = 0%; OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.13–4.01). This meta-analysis of RCTs supports the clinical utility of IABP in patients with HF-CS with SCAI C/D CS stages. These findings highlight the need for future randomized trials, designed with enrollment criteria based on clinical and hemodynamic features associated with potential responsiveness to IABP support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baldetti et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: