Objectives. To compare two different forms of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with complex high-risk indicated PCI (CHIP): the Impella CP system and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Background. To prevent hemodynamic instability in CHIP, various MCS systems are available. However, comparable data on different forms of MCS are not at hand. Methods. In this multicenter observational study, we retrospectively evaluated all CHIP procedures with the support of an Impella CP or VA-ECMO, who were declined surgery by the heart team. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mortality at discharge, and 30-day mortality were evaluated. Results. A total of 41 patients were included, of which 27 patients were supported with Impella CP and 14 patients with VA-ECMO. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced in both groups. No significant difference in periprocedural hemodynamic instability was observed between both groups (3.7% vs. 14.3%; ). The composite outcome of MACE showed no significant difference (30.7% vs. 21.4%; ). Bleeding complications were higher in the Impella CP group, but showed no significant difference (22.2% vs. 7.1%; ) and occurred more at the non-Impella access site. In-hospital mortality was 7.4% in the Impella CP group versus 14.3% in the VA-ECMO group and showed no significant difference ( ). 30-Day mortality showed no significant difference (7.4% vs. 21.4%; ). Conclusions. In patients with CHIP, there were no significant differences in hemodynamic instability and overall MACE between VA-ECMO or Impella CP device as mechanical circulatory support. Based on this study, the choice of either VA-ECMO or Impella CP does not alter the outcome.

Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) has recently been replaced by a new entity described as chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). This new entity has been developed based on a better understanding of the pathogenesis, the clinical characteristics, and the morbi-mortality associated to this condition as part of the dynamic spectrum of CAD. This has significant implications in the clinical management of CCS patients, that ranges from lifestyle adaptation, medical therapy targeting all the elements contributing to CAD progression (i.e., platelet aggregation, coagulation, dyslipidaemia, and systemic inflammation), to invasive strategies (i.e., revascularization). CCS is the most frequent presentation of coronary artery disease which is the first cardiovascular disease worldwide. Medical therapy is the first line therapy for these patients; however, revascularization and especially percutaneous coronary intervention remains beneficial for some of them. European and American guidelines on myocardial revascularization were released in 2018 and 2021, respectively. These guidelines provide different scenarios to help physicians choose the optimal therapy for CCS patients. Recently, several trials focusing on CCS patients have been published. We sought to synthetize the place of revascularization in CCS patients according to the latest guidelines, the lessons learnt from recent trials on revascularization and medical therapy, and future perspectives.