Introduction

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) strategies have been in the clinical arena for approximately half a century, with the main aim of providing adequate systemic tissue perfusion, while also favourably impacting myocardial oxygen supply and demand, to optimise myocardial recovery in the face of cardiogenic shock (CS). This can be in the context of acute haemodynamic instability following a myocardial insult such as an acute coronary syndrome or myocarditis, or acute decompensation in a patient with chronic heart failure due to varying aetiologies. Despite major advances in both pharmacological and interventional therapies, CS continues to have a very poor prognosis with mortality rates in the order of 40%–80%.1–3 In addition to CS, MCS is more commonly being considered for patients with chronic heart failure undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This increasing population of ischaemic heart failure patients is due in part to improving survival after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but with persistent myocardial damage despite timely reperfusion.4 In the setting of haemodynamic collapse, inotropes and vasopressors are often started immediately, due to their rapid onset of action. Although they differ in terms of their effects on systemic vascular resistance, these agents increase myocardial oxygen demand through their impact on adrenergic pathways.5 ,6 As a result, pharmacologic support can worsen mortality in CS and hence should only be used as a short-term means to achieve haemodynamic stability. In contrast to drug therapy, percutaneous MCS reduces myocardial …