ArticleEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Patient selection for complex, high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention procedures: an overview.
Article in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has evolved substantially over recent decades, enabling treatment of increasingly complex coronary anatomy through major technological advances, including enhanced stent platforms, intracoronary imaging, plaque modification devices, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Despite these developments, coronary artery bypass grafting often remains the guideline-preferred strategy for patients with complex and prognostically significant coronary artery disease. However, patients with complex and advanced coronary artery disease are often older and burdened by greater comorbidity than those enrolled in randomized clinical trials, rendering many patients poor surgical candidates, and prompting preference for less invasive therapies to preserve quality of life. This shift has driven the emergence of complex, high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP) and protected PCI as alternative treatment strategies. CHIP encompasses both anatomical complexity and heightened procedural risk related to haemodynamic compromise and patient comorbidities. As randomized trials capture only a small subset of real-world patients and are often subject to selection bias, current practice relies heavily on observational data-derived largely from registries, expert consensus, and institutional experience-to guide selection of patients most likely to benefit from MCS support. This review synthesizes available contemporary evidence and consensus frameworks to delineate the multifactorial nature of CHIP risk, organizing key determinants into four categories: complex coronary anatomy, impaired haemodynamics, cardiac comorbidities, and non-cardiac comorbidities. Understanding how these factors influence procedural risk, patient selection, and therapeutic benefit is essential to decision-making and optimization of outcomes in this vulnerable 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.