What question did this study set out to answer?

To examine the trends and patterns in the use of mechanical circulatory support during percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with cardiogenic shock.

September 28, 2015CirculationOpen Access

Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Population

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in a large national registry

Design

Cohort

Authors

ASAmneet SandhuElectrophysiology LMLisa A. McCoyUniversity of California, San Francisco SNSmita NegiHemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Declining IABP use without O-MCS substitution signals uneven MCS adoption in shock PCI; leaves open optimal strategies and outcome impact.

Key Points

To examine the trends and patterns in the use of mechanical circulatory support during percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with cardiogenic shock.
Analyzed data from a large national registry
Examined IABP and O-MCS usage trends over time
Identified variation in support use across hospitals
IABP use declined over time without an increase in O-MCS use
O-MCS usage was concentrated in a small number of hospitals
Variability in mechanical support techniques was evident across different facilities.

Structured PICO

Population

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for cardiogenic shock in a large national registry

Intervention

Mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump [IABP] and other mechanical circulatory support [O-MCS])

Outcome

Trends in the use of IABP and O-MCS over time and variation across hospitals

Despite a decrease in IABP use for cardiogenic shock during PCI, there has been no compensatory increase in other mechanical circulatory support devices, which remain concentrated in a few hospitals.

Cite This Study

Sandhu et al. (2015) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d48a6595972252e7dc759b https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.114.014451

Topics

Percutaneous coronary intervention Chronic total occlusion PCI

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Declining IABP use without O-MCS substitution signals uneven MCS adoption in shock PCI; leaves open optimal strategies and outcome impact.

Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Topics

Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Structured PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Topics

Also Consider