Percutaneous left ventricular assist device vs. intra‐aortic balloon pump in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing cardiovascular intervention: A meta‐analysis

Objective Although controversial, the intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) are widely used for initial hemodynamic stabilization. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of these two devices in patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies. Meta‐analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Results The quantitative analysis included 4 RCTs and 2 observational studies. A total of 348 patients received PLVAD and 340 received IABP. Meta‐analysis revealed that early mortality rates (in‐hospital or 30‐day) did not differ between the PLVAD and IABP groups (relative risk ( RR ) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval ( CI ) = 0.70–1.51, P = 0.89). Significant differences were observed between the two groups in the composite, in‐hospital, non‐major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate ( RR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.01–1.68, P = 0.04). Conclusions Compared with IABP, PLVAD with active circulatory support did not improve early survival in those with severe left ventricular dysfunction undergoing either PCI or VT ablation, but increased the in‐hospital non‐MACCE rate.