Research AppraisalRandomised Controlled Trial

Left Ventricular Unloading in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The New England journal of medicinePerera, Divaka, Ryan, Matthew, Ezad, Saad M et al.7 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

50CEBM
Evidence: StrongRandomised Controlled Trial

PICO Framework

P — Population300 patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and extensive coronary artery disease undergoing planned complex PCI
I — InterventionElective left ventricular unloading with microaxial flow pump during PCI
C — ComparatorStandard care during complex PCI
O — OutcomesHierarchical composite of death, disabling stroke, spontaneous MI, cardiovascular hospitalisation, or periprocedural myocardial injury at minimum 12 months

Bottom Line

This multicentre RCT found that prophylactic microaxial flow pump support during complex PCI in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction did not improve clinical outcomes compared to standard care. The study showed a non-significant trend toward increased mortality in the device group (hazard ratio 1.54). Given the high cost and complexity of mechanical circulatory support devices, combined with lack of demonstrated benefit and potential for harm, routine prophylactic use cannot be recommended. The results challenge current practice in some centres and suggest that patient selection criteria and timing of mechanical support need refinement. Clinicians should continue with standard care approaches and reserve mechanical support for patients developing haemodynamic compromise during procedures.

Evidence: Strong

Key Findings

  • P Value: P = 0.30

  • Effect Size: Win ratio 0.85 favouring standard care

  • Primary Outcome: Hierarchical composite outcome showed no significant difference

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Number needed to harm approximately 7 patients for one additional death

  • Confidence Interval: 95% CI 0.63 to 1.15

Clinical Application

Limited to centres with mechanical circulatory support expertise and resources Relevant to Australian tertiary cardiac centres; device availability through TGA approval required; cost-effectiveness considerations for PBS listing would be unfavourable given lack of benefit Patients with severe LV dysfunction requiring complex PCI in tertiary cardiac centres

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with severely impaired left ventricular function carries a high risk of death and complications. Whether percutaneous left ventricular unloading improves outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 300 patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and extensive coronary artery disease in a 1:1 ratio to a strategy of elective unloading with a microaxial flow pump or to standard care during planned complex PCI. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite that included death from any cause, disabling stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, hospitalization for cardiovascular causes, or periprocedural myocardial injury at a minimum of 12 months, as analyzed according to a win ratio. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were assigned to receive a microaxial flow pump and 152 to receive standard care. At a median of 22 months (interquartile range, 16 to 30), 36.6% of pairwise comparisons favored the microaxial flow pump, and 43.0% favored standard care (win ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.15; difference, -6.4 percentage points; P = 0.30). Death from any cause occurred in 47 patients in the microaxial-flow-pump group and 33 in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.41). There was no material between-group difference in the risk of bleeding or vascular complications. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severely impaired left ventricular function undergoing complex PCI, elective left ventricular unloading with a microaxial flow pump did not reduce the risk of major adverse clinical outcomes at a minimum of 12 months. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research; CHIP-BCIS3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05003817.).

References

  1. 1.Perera, D., Ryan, M., Ezad, S. M., Khan, S. Q., Webb, I., O'Kane, P. D., Weerackody, R., Dodd, M., Kwok, M., Laidlaw, L., Van Dyck, L., Wrigley, B., Strange, J. W., Bagnall, A., Fath-Ordoubadi, F., Panoulas, V. F., Ladwiniec, A., Davies, J. R., Chase, A., Owens, C. G., Watkins, S., Rahman, H., Pareek, N., Rathod, K., Rawlins, J., Evans, R., Hoole, S. P., Stables, R. H., Curzen, N., & Clayton, T. (2026). Left ventricular unloading in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. *New England Journal of Medicine*. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2515704
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service