Lack of intra-aortic balloon pump effectiveness in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions without cardiogenic shock: A comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised trials and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Although 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). OBJECTIVE: The 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 RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.