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.
115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39013705)
1. High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with or without mechanical circulatory support: Will Impella show superiority in the PROTECT IV randomized trial? Chitturi KR; Zhang C; Abusnina W; Sawant V; Banerjee A; Ahmed S; Merdler I; Haberman D; Chaturvedi A; Lupu L; Reddy P; Case BC; Rogers T; Hashim HD; Ben-Dor I; Bernardo NL; Satler LF; Waksman R Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2024 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 39013705 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for High-Risk PCI: A Propensity-Adjusted Large-Scale Claims Dataset Analysis. Lansky AJ; Tirziu D; Moses JW; Pietras C; Ohman EM; O'Neill WW; Ekono MM; Grines CL; Parise H Am J Cardiol; 2022 Dec; 185():29-36. PubMed ID: 36210212 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of the use of hemodynamic support in patients ≥80 years versus patients <80 years during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (from the Multicenter PROTECT II Randomized Study). Pershad A; Fraij G; Massaro JM; David SW; Kleiman NS; Denktas AE; Wilson BH; Dixon SR; Ohman EM; Douglas PS; Moses JW; O'Neill WW Am J Cardiol; 2014 Sep; 114(5):657-64. PubMed ID: 25037676 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Percutaneous coronary intervention with Impella support with and without intra-aortic balloon in cardiogenic shock patients. Bhuiyan R; Bimal T; Fishbein J; Gandotra P; Selim S; Ong L; Gruberg L Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2023 Oct; 55():68-73. PubMed ID: 37076412 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]