ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Sex Differences in Outcomes of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Assisted With Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Same Support, Different Outcomes: Sex Differences in Complex PCI With Mechanical Circulatory Support.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSex-based disparities persist in the management of patients with coronary artery disease undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate sex differences in early and late outcomes among patients undergoing mechanical circulatory support (MCS)-assisted complex PCI.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of hemodynamically stable patients who underwent complex PCI assisted with either an intra-aortic balloon pump or Impella (Abiomed) at a single center between 2017 and 2022. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Secondary endpoints included individual MACE components, target vessel revascularization, bleeding, and procedural complications.
resultsAmong the 605 included patients, 24% were women (n = 145). Women had a higher comorbidity burden, presented more frequently with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and experienced significantly more in-hospital complications, particularly bleeding. At 1 year, women had higher rates of MACE compared with men (25.5% vs 13.8%; P = 0.002), driven largely by excess mortality (20.8% vs 10.2%; P = 0.003), irrespective of MCS device type. After multivariable adjustment, the difference in MACE was no longer statistically significant (adjusted HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.74-3.03; P = 0.337).
conclusionsWomen undergoing complex PCI with MCS support experienced higher procedural risk and worse early outcomes, yet adjusted 1-year MACE rates were comparable to men. The marked absolute differences in bleeding and mortality highlight the need for sex-specific approaches to patient selection, procedural planning, and post-PCI management in this high-risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.