Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: The present meta-analysis will compare the efficacy and safety of Impella versus IABP in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. CONCLUSIONS: The 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 NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/SKEQ7. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical 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.
Rao et al. (Tue,) studied this question.