Update in short-term mechanical circulatory support: indications, devices and complications
- 1Acute Cardiac Care Section, Department of Cardiology, Institut Clínic Cardiovascular, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona
- 2Institut D'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS)
- 3Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona
Abstract
Despite advances in early recognition, aetiology-directed therapy, intensive cardiovascular care and short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS), cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with high mortality and morbidity. MCS can restore systemic perfusion and stabilise patients as a bridge to recovery or advanced heart failure therapies, or as a bridge-to-decision when the final therapeutic destination remains uncertain. However, appropriate patient and device selection remains challenging. The optimal timing of support is uncertain, as both premature implantation and delayed use in advanced shock may limit benefit while increasing complications. Device selection should therefore be individualised according to the predominant patient phenotype, including left ventricular, right ventricular or biventricular failure, concomitant respiratory failure, vascular access and anatomical considerations. Randomised trials have focused predominantly on acute myocardial infarction-related CS, whereas data in heart failure-related and acute-on-chronic CS remain limited. Recent trials have also shown that greater haemodynamic support does not uniformly translate into improved survival, highlighting the importance of matching device physiology to shock phenotype and clinical trajectory. MCS is associated with clinically relevant complications, including major bleeding, haemolysis, limb ischaemia, stroke, thrombosis and vascular injury. Accordingly, its use should be considered within a strategy integrating reversibility, neurological prognosis, recovery potential, a realistic definitive therapeutic strategy, technical feasibility and anticipated complication risk. This Mini Review summarises contemporary indications, devices and complications of MCS in CS, with emphasis on phenotype-guided selection, timing, intensive care management and current evidence gaps.
Related
- Mechanical circulatory support devices in heart failure: a narrative review of current evidence, clinical applications, complications, and future directions
- Stellate ganglion phototherapy for electrical storm during mechanical circulatory support in acute coronary syndrome: a case series
- Mechanical circulatory support strategy in post-myocardial infarction ventricular septal defect repair.
- Limiting collateral damage: Nosocomial infections in patients with temporary mechanical circulatory support.
- The right ventricle as the Achilles' heel: tricuspid regurgitation and right heart failure in the era of mechanical circulatory support
BibTeX
@article{morenococa2026update,
title = {{Update in short-term mechanical circulatory support: indications, devices and complications}},
author = {Jose María Moreno-Coca and Eva Moreno-Monterde and Antoni Manzano and Rut Andrea and Marc Giménez-Milà},
journal = {Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fcvm.2026.1994496},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2026.1994496/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Update in short-term mechanical circulatory support: indications, devices and complications
AU - Jose María Moreno-Coca
AU - Eva Moreno-Monterde
AU - Antoni Manzano
AU - Rut Andrea
AU - Marc Giménez-Milà
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/22
JO - Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
DO - 10.3389/fcvm.2026.1994496
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2026.1994496/full
AB - Despite advances in early recognition, aetiology-directed therapy, intensive cardiovascular care and short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS), cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with high mortality and morbidity. MCS can restore systemic perfusion and stabilise patients as a bridge to recovery or advanced heart failure therapies, or as a bridge-to-decision when the final therapeutic destination remains uncertain. However, appropriate patient and device selection remains challenging. The optimal timing of support is uncertain, as both premature implantation and delayed use in advanced shock may limit benefit while increasing complications. Device selection should therefore be individualised according to the predominant patient phenotype, including left ventricular, right ventricular or biventricular failure, concomitant respiratory failure, vascular access and anatomical considerations. Randomised trials have focused predominantly on acute myocardial infarction-related CS, whereas data in heart failure-related and acute-on-chronic CS remain limited. Recent trials have also shown that greater haemodynamic support does not uniformly translate into improved survival, highlighting the importance of matching device physiology to shock phenotype and clinical trajectory. MCS is associated with clinically relevant complications, including major bleeding, haemolysis, limb ischaemia, stroke, thrombosis and vascular injury. Accordingly, its use should be considered within a strategy integrating reversibility, neurological prognosis, recovery potential, a realistic definitive therapeutic strategy, technical feasibility and anticipated complication risk. This Mini Review summarises contemporary indications, devices and complications of MCS in CS, with emphasis on phenotype-guided selection, timing, intensive care management and current evidence gaps.
SN - 2297-055X
ER -