Why the study?
Due to growing procedure incidence and evidence limitations, mechanical circulatory support use in complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention varies widely and its benefits remain actively debated.
Does mechanical circulatory support improve outcomes in patients undergoing complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention?
Does mechanical circulatory support improve outcomes in patients undergoing complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention?
This review synthesizes current evidence and highlights forthcoming studies on the use of mechanical circulatory support in complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Current data insufficient to guide mechanical circulatory support in high-risk PCI; leaves open questions for randomized trials.
The evidence base evaluating the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention is evolving from a small number of randomised clinical trials to incorporate an amassing body of real-world data. Due to both the growing incidence of the procedures and the limitations of the evidence, there is wide variability in the use of MCS, and the benefits are actively debated. The goal of this review is to perform an integrated analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies which have informed clinical and regulatory decision-making in contemporary clinical practice. In addition, we describe forthcoming studies that have been specifically designed to advance the field and resolve ongoing controversies that remain unanswered for this complex, high-risk patient population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferro et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: