1. What is the decision or change (e.g. clinical topic, practice guideline, system design, delivery of care) you are facing or struggling with where a summary of the evidence would be helpful?
The use of mechanical circulatory support devices has been increasing among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). These are high-risk medical devices, but there is little robust guidance about if patients benefit from receipt of these devices or across devices. In a structured format:
Questions: What is the comparative effectiveness of mechanical circulatory support devices vs each other and against no device?
Population: adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Intervention and Comparator: all mechanical circulatory support devices and no device (a very important comparator). The devices include the intra-aortic balloon pump (has been on the market for a longer period) and intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device
2. Why are you struggling with this issue?
There is significant variation in practice (Dhruva SS et al JAMA Network Open 2021) and significant uncertainty about benefits or harms.
3. What do you want to see changed? How will you know that your issue is improving or has been addressed?
A robust review could lead to guideline recommendation.
4. When do you need the evidence report?
5. What will you do with the evidence report?
This evidence report could help to inform coverage as well as clinical practice guidelines.
Optional Information About You
May we contact you if we have questions about your nomination? No