Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38511148›Full record

ReviewEuropean heart journal open2024

The use of mechanical circulatory support in elective high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: a literature-based review.

Alexander Geppert, Kambis Mashayekhi, Kurt Huber

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European heart journal open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient selection for complex, high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention procedures: an overview.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander Geppert3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Clinic Ottakring, Montleartstrasse 37, A-1160 Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6654-6764
Kambis MashayekhiDivision of Cardiology and Angiology II, University Heart Center Freiburg-Bad Krozingen, Südring 15, D-79189 Bad Krozingen, Faculty of Medicine of the University, Freiburg, Germany.
Kurt Huber3rd Department of Medicine, Cardiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Clinic Ottakring, Montleartstrasse 37, A-1160 Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7934-5524
Sigmund Freud Privatuniversität Wien · ATUniversitäts-Herzzentrum Freiburg-Bad Krozingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contemporary medical practices allow complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a considerable number of patients who previously would have been considered too 'high-risk' for such procedures. The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices during these high-risk PCIs (HR-PCIs) is thought to reduce the potential risk for major adverse events during and after revascularization. The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO), and the Impella are the most common MCS devices in use. This review aims to summarize the clinical evidence for each of these devices and the potential mechanisms for the improvement in patient outcomes in HR-PCI. The IABP use has rapidly declined in recent years due to no evidence of benefit in HR-PCI and cardiogenic shock. The V-A ECMO results in low rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) but higher rates of acute kidney injury and increased need for transfusions. In initial studies, Impella resulted in a reduced need for repeat interventions and reduced rates of hypotension, but no benefit in mortality. However, MACCE rates with Impella have gradually declined over the last 10 years, reflecting increased operator experience and technical improvements. Thus, a large, randomized trial is needed to assess the efficacy of Impella in HR-PCI with contemporary standards of care. There is currently no individual parameter that can identify patients who would benefit from MCS use in elective HR-PCI. To address this gap, we propose an algorithm that combines anatomical complexity, comorbidities, and clinical presentation to accurately identify candidates for MCS-assisted HR-PCI.

Indexed as

High-risk percutaneous coronary interventionIABPImpellaMechanical circulatory supportV-A ECMO

Identifiers

PMID38511148
PMCPMC10954236
OpenAlexW4391729332

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.