These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20966145)

  • 1. Extended use of a percutaneous left-ventricular assist device without a heparin-based purge solution.
    Jennings DL; Nemerovski CW; Khandelwal A
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2010 Nov; 67(21):1825-8. PubMed ID: 20966145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Use of an argatroban-based purge solution in a percutaneous ventricular assist device.
    Laliberte B; Reed BN
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2017 May; 74(9):e163-e169. PubMed ID: 28438820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction.
    Seyfarth M; Sibbing D; Bauer I; Fröhlich G; Bott-Flügel L; Byrne R; Dirschinger J; Kastrati A; Schömig A
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2008 Nov; 52(19):1584-8. PubMed ID: 19007597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effective anticoagulation for a percutaneous ventricular assist device using a heparin-based purge solution.
    Jennings DL; Nemerovski CW; Kalus JS
    Ann Pharmacother; 2013 Oct; 47(10):1364-7. PubMed ID: 24259702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Hemodynamic Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock and Coexistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Propensity-Matched Analysis'.
    Desai R; Hanna B; Singh S; Gupta S; Deshmukh A; Kumar G; Sachdeva R; Berman AE
    Am J Med Sci; 2021 Jan; 361(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 33008567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Safety and Efficacy of a Percutaneously Inserted Ventricular Support Device Purge Solution Heparin 25 U/mL.
    Jiang C; Stuart M; Makowski C; Jennings DL; To L
    Ann Pharmacother; 2021 Feb; 55(2):174-180. PubMed ID: 32741200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Successful combined use of Impella Recover 2.5 device and intra-aortic balloon pump support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction.
    Wiktor DM; Sawlani N; Kanthi Y; Sipahi I; Fang JC; Blitz A
    ASAIO J; 2010; 56(6):519-21. PubMed ID: 20938341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Use of Systemic Bivalirudin and an Anticoagulant-Free Purge Solution in a Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device in a Patient With Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia.
    Kazmi H; Milkovits AE
    J Pharm Pract; 2021 Aug; 34(4):662-664. PubMed ID: 32508244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pharmacologic Considerations in the Management of Patients Receiving Left Ventricular Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support.
    Allender JE; Reed BN; Foster JL; Moretz JD; Oliphant CS; Jennings DL; DiDomenico RJ; Coons JC
    Pharmacotherapy; 2017 Oct; 37(10):1272-1283. PubMed ID: 28741848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. In vitro comparison of support capabilities of intra-aortic balloon pump and Impella 2.5 left percutaneous.
    Schampaert S; van't Veer M; van de Vosse FN; Pijls NH; de Mol BA; Rutten MC
    Artif Organs; 2011 Sep; 35(9):893-901. PubMed ID: 21819436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
    Thiele H; Sick P; Boudriot E; Diederich KW; Hambrecht R; Niebauer J; Schuler G
    Eur Heart J; 2005 Jul; 26(13):1276-83. PubMed ID: 15734771
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Prophylactic use of intra-aortic balloon pump for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: will the Impella LP 2.5 device show superiority in a clinical randomized study?
    Syed AI; Kakkar A; Torguson R; Li Y; Ben-Dor I; Collins SD; Lemesle G; Maluenda G; Xue Z; Scheinowitz M; Kaneshige K; Satler LF; Kent KM; Suddath WO; Pichard AD; Lindsay J; Waksman R
    Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2010; 11(2):91-7. PubMed ID: 20347798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Acute intraventricular thrombosis of an impella LP 5.0 device in an ST-elevated myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
    Ranc S; Sibellas F; Green L
    J Invasive Cardiol; 2013 Jan; 25(1):E1-3. PubMed ID: 23293180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump During High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Cardiogenic Shock.
    Rios SA; Bravo CA; Weinreich M; Olmedo W; Villablanca P; Villela MA; Ramakrishna H; Hirji S; Robles OA; Mahato P; Gluud C; Bhatt DL; Jorde UP
    Am J Cardiol; 2018 Oct; 122(8):1330-1338. PubMed ID: 30146099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The efficacy and safety of mechanical hemodynamic support in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with or without cardiogenic shock: Bayesian approach network meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials.
    Lee JM; Park J; Kang J; Jeon KH; Jung JH; Lee SE; Han JK; Kim HL; Yang HM; Park KW; Kang HJ; Koo BK; Kim SH; Kim HS
    Int J Cardiol; 2015 Apr; 184():36-46. PubMed ID: 25697869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Use of the percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with severe refractory cardiogenic shock as a bridge to long-term left ventricular assist device implantation.
    Idelchik GM; Simpson L; Civitello AB; Loyalka P; Gregoric ID; Delgado R; Kar B
    J Heart Lung Transplant; 2008 Jan; 27(1):106-11. PubMed ID: 18187095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial).
    Dangas GD; Kini AS; Sharma SK; Henriques JP; Claessen BE; Dixon SR; Massaro JM; Palacios I; Popma JJ; Ohman M; Stone GW; O'Neill WW
    Am J Cardiol; 2014 Jan; 113(2):222-8. PubMed ID: 24527505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiogenic Shock With Either a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device or an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump.
    Nakajima T; Tanaka Y; Fischer I; Kotkar K; Damiano RJ; Moon MR; Masood MF; Itoh A
    ASAIO J; 2021 Jan; 67(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 33346989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Hemodynamic Support Devices for Shock and High-Risk PCI: When and Which One.
    Vetrovec GW
    Curr Cardiol Rep; 2017 Aug; 19(10):100. PubMed ID: 28856523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Combined hemodynamic support with the Impella 2.5 device and intra-aortic balloon pump for management of refractory cardiogenic shock.
    Pavlidis AN; Redwood SR; Clapp BR
    J Invasive Cardiol; 2014 May; 26(5):E50-1. PubMed ID: 24791724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.