Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38137824›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023

Mechanical Support Strategies for High-Risk Procedures in the Invasive Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A State-of-the-Art Review.

Niels T A Groeneveld, Carolien E L Swier, Jose Montero-Cabezas, Carlos V Elzo Kraemer, Frederikus A Klok, Floris S van den Brink

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Niels T A GroeneveldDepartment of Anesthesiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Carolien E L SwierDepartment of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jose Montero-CabezasDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.
Carlos V Elzo KraemerDepartment of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5426-9334
Frederikus A KlokDepartment of Medicine-Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9961-0754
Floris S van den BrinkDepartment of Intensive Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4998-4373
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thanks to advancements in percutaneous cardiac interventions, an expanding patient population now qualifies for treatment through percutaneous endovascular procedures. High-risk interventions far exceed coronary interventions and include transcatheter aortic valve replacement, endovascular management of acute pulmonary embolism and ventricular tachycardia ablation. Given the frequent impairment of ventricular function in these patients, frequently deteriorating during percutaneous interventions, it is hypothesized that mechanical ventricular support may improve periprocedural survival and subsequently patient outcome. In this narrative review, we aimed to provide the relevant evidence found for the clinical use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS). We searched the Pubmed database for articles related to pMCS and to pMCS and invasive cath lab procedures. The articles and their references were evaluated for relevance. We provide an overview of the clinically relevant evidence for intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, TandemHeart and ECMO and their role as pMCS in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, transcatheter valvular procedures, ablations and high-risk pulmonary embolism. We found that the right choice of periprocedural pMCS could provide a solution for the hemodynamic challenges during these procedures. However, to enhance the understanding of the safety and effectiveness of pMCS devices in an often high-risk population, more randomized research is needed.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockcatheterization laboratorymechanical circulatory support

Identifiers

PMID38137824
PMCPMC10744085
OpenAlexW4389891006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.