Patient Selection for Complex, High-Risk Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CHIP) Procedures: An Overview

Abstract Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has evolved substantially over recent decades, enabling treatment of increasingly complex coronary anatomy through major technological advances, including among others enhanced stent platforms, intracoronary imaging, plaque modification devices, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Despite these developments, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) often remains the guideline-preferred strategy for patients with complex and prognostically significant coronary artery disease. However, often patients with complex and advanced coronary artery disease are older and burdened by greater comorbidity than those enrolled in randomised clinical trials, rendering many patients poor surgical candidates, and prompting preference for less invasive therapies to preserve quality of life. This shift has driven the emergence of complex high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP) and protected PCI as alternative treatment strategies. CHIP encompasses both anatomical complexity and heightened procedural risk related to haemodynamic compromise and patient comorbidities. As randomized trials capture only a small subset of real-world patients and are often subject to selection bias, current practice relies heavily on observational data—derived largely from registries, expert consensus, and institutional experience—to guide selection of patients most likely to benefit from MCS support. This review synthesizes available contemporary evidence and consensus frameworks to delineate the multifactorial nature of CHIP risk, organizing key determinants into four categories: complex coronary anatomy, impaired haemodynamics, cardiac comorbidities, and non-cardiac comorbidities. Understanding how these factors influence procedural risk, patient selection, and therapeutic benefit is essential to decision-making and optimization of outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Heart Journal Supplements
Published
2026-03-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suag057
Primary Topic
Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Patient Selection for Complex, High-Risk Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CHIP) Procedures: An Overview

Guido Tavazzi, Jerzy Sacha, J Leick, Lux Árpád et al.
European Heart Journal Supplements
Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
article

Patient Selection for Complex, High-Risk Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CHIP) Procedures: An Overview

Guido Tavazzi, Jerzy Sacha, J Leick, Lux Árpád, Nikos Werner, Matthias Bossard, Ovidio De Filippo, Roberto Lorusso, Nilesh Pareek, Vasileios Panoulas
article en

Abstract

Abstract Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has evolved substantially over recent decades, enabling treatment of increasingly complex coronary anatomy through major technological advances, including among others enhanced stent platforms, intracoronary imaging, plaque modification devices, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Despite these developments, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) often remains the guideline-preferred strategy for patients with complex and prognostically significant coronary artery disease. However, often patients with complex and advanced coronary artery disease are older and burdened by greater comorbidity than those enrolled in randomised clinical trials, rendering many patients poor surgical candidates, and prompting preference for less invasive therapies to preserve quality of life. This shift has driven the emergence of complex high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP) and protected PCI as alternative treatment strategies. CHIP encompasses both anatomical complexity and heightened procedural risk related to haemodynamic compromise and patient comorbidities. As randomized trials capture only a small subset of real-world patients and are often subject to selection bias, current practice relies heavily on observational data—derived largely from registries, expert consensus, and institutional experience—to guide selection of patients most likely to benefit from MCS support. This review synthesizes available contemporary evidence and consensus frameworks to delineate the multifactorial nature of CHIP risk, organizing key determinants into four categories: complex coronary anatomy, impaired haemodynamics, cardiac comorbidities, and non-cardiac comorbidities. Understanding how these factors influence procedural risk, patient selection, and therapeutic benefit is essential to decision-making and optimization of outcomes in this vulnerable population.

European Heart Journal Supplements
Opole University of Technology (PL), University of Lucerne (CH), University of Opole (PL), King's College London (GB), University of Pavia (IT), Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL), Harefield Hospital (GB), Maastricht University (NL), Azienda Ospedaliera Citta' della Salute e della Scienza di Torino (IT), Lung Institute (US), King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Luzerner Kantonsspital (CH), Torino e-district (IT), Policlinico San Matteo Fondazione (IT), Universität Trier (DE)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.