Why the study?
Percutaneous coronary intervention has become viable in older, highly comorbid patients due to advances in stent design and evolving mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk PCI and refractory cardiogenic shock.
Does percutaneous mechanical circulatory support improve outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock or undergoing high-risk PCI?
Does percutaneous mechanical circulatory support improve outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock or undergoing high-risk PCI?
This review summarizes the evidence for using percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk PCI and refractory cardiogenic shock.
Evidence on pMCS in high-risk PCI and refractory shock remains inconclusive; leaves open optimal patient selection pending RCTs.
Statistical data has shown that patients now treated in cardiac catheterization laboratories are older with several comorbidities, including renal failure, diabetes, and heart failure [1]. In past patients who were not suitable candidates for percutaneous coronary intervention due to their numerous comorbidities now seems to be a suitable candidate due to tremendous advancements in the field of interventional cardiology like new stent design and availability of advance mechanical circulatory support devices, i.e., Impella performing PCI on these high-risk patients become a viable option. There are two areas of cardiology in which mechanical circulatory support devices keep evolving: one is high-risk (percutaneous coronary intervention) PCI, and the other is a cardiogenic shock that is refractory to initial pressor support. In this article, we review evidence base data regarding the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in high-risk percutaneous intervention and cardiogenic shock.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarwar et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: