# Comparative Outcomes of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Versus Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

## TL;DR

This study compares two heart support devices during high-risk heart procedures and finds one device is better at reducing early death and heart failure risks.

## Contribution

The study provides a meta-analysis comparing IABP and PLVAD outcomes in HR-PCI without cardiogenic shock.

## Key findings

- PLVAD use was associated with lower early mortality compared to IABP.
- PLVAD reduced the risk of cardiogenic shock compared to IABP.
- No significant differences were found in bleeding, kidney injury, or stroke rates between the devices.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: High-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (HR-PCIs) often require mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to maintain hemodynamic stability. Intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) are two commonly used MCS devices that differ in their mechanisms. We aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes associated with IABP and PLVAD use in HR-PCIs without cardiogenic shock. Methods: We conducted a search of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Mendeley, Web of Science, and Embase to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, and we included 13 studies for the systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary goal was to define the difference in early mortality (in-hospital and 30-day mortality), major bleeding, and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) components (cardiogenic shock, acute kidney injury (AKI), and stroke/TIA) in IABP and PLVAD. We used a random-effects model with the Mantel–Haenszel statistical method to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Among 1 trial and 12 cohort studies (35,554 patients; 30,351 IABP and 5203 PLVAD), HR-PCI with IABP was associated with a higher risk of early mortality (OR = 1.53, 95% CI [1.21, 1.94]) and cardiogenic shock (OR = 2.56, 95% CI [1.98, 3.33]) when compared to PLVAD. No significant differences were found in the rates of arrhythmia, major bleeding, AKI, stroke/TIA, or hospital length of stay. Conclusions: In high-risk PCIs, PLVAD use is associated with lower early mortality and cardiogenic shock risk compared to IABP, with no significant differences in other major outcomes.