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 *

415 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33008567)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.
    Dhruva SS; Ross JS; Mortazavi BJ; Hurley NC; Krumholz HM; Curtis JP; Berkowitz A; Masoudi FA; Messenger JC; Parzynski CS; Ngufor C; Girotra S; Amin AP; Shah ND; Desai NR
    JAMA; 2020 Feb; 323(8):734-745. PubMed ID: 32040163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Impact of Atrial Fibrillation on In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Coronary Revascularization with Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device Support.
    Sonu G; Rupak D; Bishoy H; Abhishek D; Gautam K; Rajesh S; Adam EB
    J Atr Fibrillation; 2020; 12(5):2179. PubMed ID: 32435351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cost savings for pVAD compared to ECMO in the management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: An episode-of-care analysis.
    Vetrovec GW; Lim MJ; Needham KA
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2021 Oct; 98(4):703-710. PubMed ID: 32790231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Percutaneous Microaxial Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Nonacute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock.
    Watanabe A; Miyamoto Y; Ueyama H; Gotanda H; Tsugawa Y; Kuno T
    J Am Heart Assoc; 2024 Jun; 13(11):e034645. PubMed ID: 38804220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Percutaneous Coronary Interventions and Hemodynamic Support in the USA: A 5 Year Experience.
    Patel NJ; Singh V; Patel SV; Savani C; Patel N; Panaich S; Arora S; Cohen MG; Grines C; Badheka AO
    J Interv Cardiol; 2015 Dec; 28(6):563-73. PubMed ID: 26643003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Impella Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis.
    Moustafa A; Khan MS; Saad M; Siddiqui S; Eltahawy E
    Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2022 Jan; 34():25-31. PubMed ID: 33549497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Intraaortic Balloon Pump vs Peripheral Ventricular Assist Device Use in the United States.
    Sanaiha Y; Ziaeian B; Antonios JW; Kavianpour B; Anousheh R; Benharash P
    Ann Thorac Surg; 2020 Dec; 110(6):1997-2005. PubMed ID: 32454014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: analysis of national inpatient sample data, 2007 through 2012.
    Khera R; Cram P; Lu X; Vyas A; Gerke A; Rosenthal GE; Horwitz PA; Girotra S
    JAMA Intern Med; 2015 Jun; 175(6):941-50. PubMed ID: 25822170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparative safety of percutaneous ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction-induced cardiogenic shock.
    Ullah W; Zghouzi M; Mukhtar M; Banisad A; Alhatemi G; Sattar Y; Zahid S; Moussa Pacha H; Gardi D; Alraies MC
    Open Heart; 2021 Jun; 8(1):. PubMed ID: 34127531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Outcomes of nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention requiring mechanical circulatory support in patients without cardiogenic shock.
    Al-Khadra Y; Alraies MC; Darmoch F; Pacha HM; Soud M; Kaki A; Rab T; Grines CL; Meraj P; Alaswad K; Kwok CS; Mamas M; Kapadia S
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2020 Feb; 95(3):503-512. PubMed ID: 31254325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Outcomes of catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia with mechanical hemodynamic support: An analysis of the Medicare database.
    Aryana A; d'Avila A; Cool CL; Miller MA; Garcia FC; Supple GE; Dukkipati SR; Lakkireddy D; Bunch TJ; Bowers MR; O'Neill PG; Reddy VY; Marchlinski FE
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 2017 Nov; 28(11):1295-1302. PubMed ID: 28800178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Diffusion of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in US Markets.
    Bjarnason TA; Mentias A; Panaich S; Vaughan Sarrazin M; Gao Y; Desai M; Pandey A; Dhruva SS; Desai NR; Girotra S
    Circ Cardiovasc Interv; 2022 Aug; 15(8):e011778. PubMed ID: 35904015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical features and outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: early vs recent experience with impella.
    Singh H; Mehta RH; O'Neill W; Kapur NK; Lalonde T; Ohman M; Ghiu I; Chen-Hsing Y; Dutcheshen K; Schreiber T; Rosman H; Kaki A
    Am Heart J; 2021 Aug; 238():66-74. PubMed ID: 33848505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Trends in first-time hospitalization, management, and short-term mortality in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock from 2005 to 2017: A nationwide cohort study.
    Lauridsen MD; Rørth R; Lindholm MG; Kjaergaard J; Schmidt M; Møller JE; Hassager C; Torp-Pedersen C; Gislason G; Køber L; Fosbøl EL
    Am Heart J; 2020 Nov; 229():127-137. PubMed ID: 32861678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States.
    Khera R; Cram P; Vaughan-Sarrazin M; Horwitz PA; Girotra S
    Am J Cardiol; 2016 Jan; 117(1):10-6. PubMed ID: 26547292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. A Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes Between the Use of Impella and IABP in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
    Jin C; Yandrapalli S; Yang Y; Liu B; Aronow WS; Naidu SS
    J Invasive Cardiol; 2022 Feb; 34(2):E98-E103. PubMed ID: 35100554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Contemporary trends in use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock.
    Helgestad OKL; Josiassen J; Hassager C; Jensen LO; Holmvang L; Udesen NLJ; Schmidt H; Berg Ravn H; Moller JE
    Open Heart; 2020; 7(1):e001214. PubMed ID: 32201591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.