Mapping of scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) in structural heart disease is fundamentally driven by identifying the critical isthmus of conduction that supports re-entry in and around myocardial scar. Mapping can be performed using activation and entrainment techniques during VT, or by substrate mapping performed in stable sinus or paced rhythm. Activation and entrainment mapping requires the patient to be in continuous VT, which may not be haemodynamically tolerated, or, if tolerated, may lead to adverse sequelae related to impaired end organ perfusion. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices may facilitate haemodynamic stability and preserve end organ perfusion during sustained VT to permit mapping for long periods. Available options for haemodynamic support include an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), TandemHeart left atrial to femoral artery bypass system (CardiacAssist Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA), Impella left ventricle (LV) to aorta flow-assist system (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); the bypass and assist devices provide far better augmentation of cardiac output than IABP. MCS has potential key advantages including maintenance of vital organ perfusion, reduction of intra-cardiac filling pressures, reduction of LV volumes, wall stress, and myocardial consumption of oxygen, and improvement of coronary perfusion during prolonged periods of VT induction and/or mapping. Observational studies show MCS allows for longer duration of mapping, and increased likelihood of VT termination, without an increased risk of peri-procedural mortality or VT recurrence in follow-up, despite being used in a significantly sicker cohort of patients. However, MCS has increased risk of complications related to vascular access, bleeding, thromboembolic risk, mapping system interference, increase procedural complexity and increased cost. Acute haemodynamic decompensation occurs in ∼11% of patients undergoing VT ablation, and is associated with increased mortality. Prospectively identifying patients at risk of acute haemodynamic decompensation in the peri-procedural period may allow prophylactic MCS. Although observational studies of MCS in patients at high risk of haemodynamic decompensation are encouraging, its benefit needs to be proven in randomised trials. This review will summarise the indication for MCS, forms of MCS, procedural outcomes, complications and utility of MCS during VT ablation.