ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Role of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Complex High-Risk and Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Current Indications, Device Options, and Potential Complications.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lower AKI Risk and Higher Survival With Microaxial Flow Pump Support During Elective PCI: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Observational
- Impella™-protected PCI in a post-CABG patient with advanced biventricular dysfunction and mitral regurgitation.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Preprocedural vascular sheath insertion reduces hospital mortality in high risk PCI patients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Transcatheter management of cardiogenic shock in severe aortic stenosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Functional Mitral Regurgitation in the Transcatheter Era: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Pathways.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical outcomes after complex and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention according to baseline chronic kidney disease.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improved expertise and technological advancements have enabled the safe and effective performance of complex and high-risk-indicated percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP) in patients previously considered inoperable or high-risk. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices play a crucial role in stabilizing hemodynamics during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) -related ischemia, thereby reducing the risk of major adverse events and achieving a more complete revascularization. However, the use of MCS devices in protected PCI is not without risks, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI), bleeding, and access-related complications. Despite numerous observational studies, there is a significant lack of randomized clinical trials comparing different MCS devices in various CHIP scenarios and evaluating their long-term safety and efficacy profiles. This review aims to summarize the current evidence regarding the benefits of MCS devices during CHIPs, offer a practical guide for selecting appropriate devices based on clinical scenarios, and highlight the unanswered questions that future trials need to address.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.