Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38407792›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2024

Mechanical Circulatory Support for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Silvia Moscardelli, Reza Masoomi, Pedro Villablanca, Ahmad Jabri, Ankitkumar K Patel, Francesco Moroni, Lorenzo Azzalini

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Mechanical Circulatory Support With Impella in High-Risk Patients With Chronic Total Occlusion and Complex Multivessel Disease.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Silvia MoscardelliDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356422, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Reza MasoomiDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356422, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Pedro VillablancaDivision of Cardiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Ahmad JabriDivision of Cardiology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA.
Ankitkumar K PatelDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA.
Francesco MoroniRobert M. Berne Cardiovascular Research Center, and Division of Cardiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Lorenzo AzzaliniDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356422, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. azzalini@uw.edu.
University of Washington · USHenry Ford Hospital · USHackensack University Medical Center · USUniversity of Virginia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review will focus on the indications of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and then analyze in detail all MCS devices available to the operator, evaluating their mechanisms of action, pros and cons, contraindications, and clinical data supporting their use. RECENT

findingsOver the last decade, the interventional cardiology arena has witnessed an increase in the complexity profile of the patients and lesions treated in the catheterization laboratory. Patients with significant comorbidity burden, left ventricular dysfunction, impaired hemodynamics, and/or complex coronary anatomy often cannot tolerate extensive percutaneous revascularization. Therefore, a variety of MCS devices have been developed and adopted for high-risk PCI. Despite the variety of MCS available to date, a detailed characterization of the patient requiring MCS is still lacking. A precise selection of patients who can benefit from MCS support during high-risk PCI and the choice of the most appropriate MCS device in each case are imperative to provide extensive revascularization and improve patient outcomes. Several new devices are being tested in early feasibility studies and randomized clinical trials and the experience gained in this context will allow us to provide precise answers to these questions in the coming years.

Indexed as

Heart-Assist DevicesPercutaneous Coronary InterventionVentricular Dysfunction, LeftHumansIntra-Aortic Balloon PumpingShock, CardiogenicTreatment OutcomeExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationHigh-risk percutaneous coronary interventionImpellaIntra-aortic balloon pumpMechanical circulatory supportPercutaneous coronary interventionTandemHeart

Identifiers

PMID38407792
OpenAlexW4392156541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.