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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34028964)

  • 1. Short term outcomes of Impella circulatory support for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Elia E; Iannaccone M; D'Ascenzo F; Gallone G; Colombo F; Albani S; Attisani M; Rinaldi M; Boccuzzi G; Conrotto F; Noussan P; De Ferrari GM
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2022 Jan; 99(1):27-36. PubMed ID: 34028964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical outcomes in patients undergoing complex, high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and haemodynamic support with intra-aortic balloon versus Impella pump: Real-life single-centre preliminary results.
    Januszek R; Pawlik A; Rzeszutko Ł; Bartuś K; Bartuś S
    Kardiol Pol; 2022; 80(12):1224-1231. PubMed ID: 36047958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Safety and efficacy of mechanical circulatory support with Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and/or cardiogenic shock: Insights from a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
    Kuno T; Takagi H; Ando T; Kodaira M; Numasawa Y; Fox J; Bangalore S
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2021 Apr; 97(5):E636-E645. PubMed ID: 32894797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Real-world supported unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention with impella device; data from the USpella registry.
    Schreiber T; Wah Htun W; Blank N; Telila T; Mercado N; Briasoulis A; Kaki A; Kondur A; Munir A; Grines C
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2017 Oct; 90(4):576-581. PubMed ID: 28417594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Impella support for cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: A single-center experience.
    Brandão M; Caeiro D; Pires-Morais G; Almeida JG; Teixeira PG; Silva MP; Ponte M; Dias A; Oliveira M; Rodrigues A; Braga P
    Rev Port Cardiol (Engl Ed); 2021 Nov; 40(11):853-861. PubMed ID: 34857158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Timing of impella placement in PCI for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: An updated meta-analysis.
    Iannaccone M; Franchin L; Hanson ID; Boccuzzi G; Basir MB; Truesdell AG; O'Neill W
    Int J Cardiol; 2022 Sep; 362():47-54. PubMed ID: 35533755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Timing of Impella implantation and outcomes in cardiogenic shock or high-risk percutaneous coronary revascularization.
    Tarantini G; Masiero G; Burzotta F; Pazzanese V; Briguori C; Trani C; Piva T; De Marco F; Di Biasi M; Pagnotta P; Mojoli M; Casu G; Giustino G; Lorenzoni G; Montorfano M; Ancona MB; Pappalardo F; Chieffo A;
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2021 Aug; 98(2):E222-E234. PubMed ID: 33793051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Gender disparities with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention complicated by cardiogenic shock: From pVAD Working Group.
    Doshi R; Patel K; Decter D; Jauhar R; Meraj P
    Indian Heart J; 2018 Jul; 70 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S90-S95. PubMed ID: 30122245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Six months follow-up of protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the microaxial Impella pump: results from the German Impella registry.
    Baumann S; Werner N; Al-Rashid F; Schäfer A; Bauer T; Sotoudeh R; Bojara W; Shamekhi J; Sinning JM; Becher T; Eder F; Akin I
    Coron Artery Dis; 2020 May; 31(3):237-242. PubMed ID: 31658135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the USpella Registry.
    Maini B; Naidu SS; Mulukutla S; Kleiman N; Schreiber T; Wohns D; Dixon S; Rihal C; Dave R; O'Neill W
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2012 Nov; 80(5):717-25. PubMed ID: 22105829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of a pulsatile and a continuous flow left ventricular assist device in high-risk PCI.
    Samol A; Wiemer M; Kaese S
    Int J Cardiol; 2022 Aug; 360():7-12. PubMed ID: 35597491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Impella Recover 2.5 and TandemHeart ventricular assist devices are safe and associated with equivalent clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention.
    Kovacic JC; Nguyen HT; Karajgikar R; Sharma SK; Kini AS
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2013 Jul; 82(1):E28-37. PubMed ID: 21234916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Feasibility and efficacy of the 2.5 L and 3.8 L impella percutaneous left ventricular support device during high-risk, percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with severe aortic stenosis.
    Spiro J; Venugopal V; Raja Y; Ludman PF; Townend JN; Doshi SN
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2015 May; 85(6):981-9. PubMed ID: 24408882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Prevalence and Clinical Correlates of Extended Mechanical Support in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Current Clinical Practice: Insights from the cVAD Registry.
    Davila CD; Sharma S; Krishnamoorthy P; Rengifo-Moreno P; Palacios IF; O'Neill W; Kapur NK; Witzke CF
    Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2020 Mar; 21(3):342-347. PubMed ID: 31227392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the TandemHeart and Impella devices: a single-center experience.
    Schwartz BG; Ludeman DJ; Mayeda GS; Kloner RA; Economides C; Burstein S
    J Invasive Cardiol; 2011 Oct; 23(10):417-24. PubMed ID: 21972160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Complex High-Risk Indicated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Prophylactic Use of the Impella CP Ventricular Assist Device.
    van den Buijs DMF; van den Brink FS; Wilgenhof A; Zivelonghi C; Verouden N; Knaapen P; Sjauw KD; Vermeersch P; Nap A
    J Invasive Cardiol; 2022 Sep; 34(9):E665-E671. PubMed ID: 36001456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review.
    Ait Ichou J; Larivée N; Eisenberg MJ; Suissa K; Filion KB
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2018 Jun; 91(7):1250-1260. PubMed ID: 28941078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices: A Health Technology Assessment.
    Health Quality Ontario
    Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2017; 17(2):1-97. PubMed ID: 28232854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Outcomes of Impella-supported high-risk nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention in a large single-center registry.
    Azzalini L; Johal GS; Baber U; Bander J; Moreno PR; Bazi L; Kapur V; Barman N; Kini AS; Sharma SK
    Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2021 Jan; 97(1):E26-E33. PubMed ID: 32333721
    [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 7.