Weekly Journal Scan: Reassessing the promises and challenges of routine left ventricular support during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention
Clicks: 21
ID: 321734
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
6.0
/100
21 views
1 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #26 of 310 articles by views in european heart journal
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 310 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
This comment refers to ‘Left Ventricular Unloading in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention’, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2515704. Patients with severe LV dysfunction undergoing complex and high-risk PCI represent one of the most challenging populations in contemporary interventional cardiology.2 Extensive CAD, limited myocardial reserve, and the risk of transient ischaemia during prolonged and technically demanding procedures have provided a compelling rationale for the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support.2 Among available devices, microaxial flow pump has been increasingly adopted to maintain systemic perfusion and unload the LV, with the expectation that improved haemodynamic stability would facilitate more complete revascularization and ultimately translate into LV functional recovery3 and better clinical outcomes.4 The randomized PROTECT II trial, which compared a microaxial flow pump with intra-aortic balloon pump support during high-risk PCI, did not show significant differences in major adverse events at 30 days between the two groups and was terminated early for futility, although a trend towards improved outcomes with microaxial flow pump was observed at a pre-specified 90-day follow-up.5 In the prospective, multicentre, single-arm, observational, FDA-audited post-approval PROTECT III study,6 microaxial flow pump-supported high-risk PCI was associated with more complete revascularization, less bleeding, and improved 90-day clinical outcomes compared to a PROTECT II historical cohort. Likewise, a subanalysis of the IMP-IT registry demonstrated an association between the extent of revascularization achieved during microaxial flow pump-supported PCI and subsequent survival, reinforcing the hypothesis that LV support may derive its benefit by facilitating more complete coronary revascularization.7 However, these data must be interpreted in the context of the neutral findings of REVIVED-BCIS2, where PCI itself failed to reduce death or heart failure hospitalization in patients with severe ischaemic LV dysfunction, independent of the extent of revascularization.8 Of note, mechanical circulatory support was used in only 3% of patients randomized to PCI. Reflecting these uncertainties, the 2024 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes assign a class IIb recommendation to the use of microaxial flow pump in carefully selected patients undergoing high-risk PCI in experienced centres.9
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7169863087
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Rocco Vergallo, D Pedicino |
| Journal | european heart journal |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/eurheartj/ehag529
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.