Cochrane · systematic review · CD013002

Mechanical assist devices for acute cardiogenic shock

Ni hIci, T, Boardman, HMP, Baig, K, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library

HeartAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
6
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 14.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 85.7%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Mechanical assist devices compared to intra‐aortic balloon pump for acute cardiogenic shock at 30‐day follow‐up

Population: people with acute cardiogenic shock
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
30‐day survival
Mechanical assist devices vs intra‐aortic balloon pump
RR 1.01 [0.76, 1.35]5 studies · 162 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Quality of life
Mechanical assist devices vs intra‐aortic balloon pump
no estimate extractedNRNo studies
MACE
Mechanical assist devices vs intra‐aortic balloon pump
no estimate extracted3 studies · 122 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Dialysis‐dependent
Mechanical assist devices vs intra‐aortic balloon pump
no estimate extracted1 study · 48 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Length of stay (hospital)
Mechanical assist devices vs intra‐aortic balloon pump
no estimate extracted1 study · 48 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Length of stay (ICU)
Mechanical assist devices vs intra‐aortic balloon pump
no estimate extracted1 study · 48 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Major adverse events
Mechanical assist devices vs intra‐aortic balloon pump
no estimate extracted3 studies · 122 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision