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.
30. Comparative Healthcare Resource Utilization of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Using Impella Versus Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Use for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and Cardiogenic Shock Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Insights From National Inpatient Sample. Dodoo SN; Kwapong YA; Agyemang-Sarpong A; Amoran E; Egolum UO; Ghasemzadeh N; Ramadan R; Henry G; Samady H Curr Probl Cardiol; 2024 Jan; 49(1 Pt A):102053. PubMed ID: 37640173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Comparison of peri and post-procedural complications in patients undergoing revascularisation of coronary artery multivessel disease by coronary artery bypass grafting or protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device. Becher T; Baumann S; Eder F; Perschka S; Loßnitzer D; Fastner C; Behnes M; Doesch C; Borggrefe M; Akin I Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care; 2019 Jun; 8(4):360-368. PubMed ID: 28660768 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. Long term survival after early unloading with Impella CP Loehn T; O'Neill WW; Lange B; Pfluecke C; Schweigler T; Mierke J; Waessnig N; Mahlmann A; Youssef A; Speiser U; Strasser RH; Ibrahim K Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care; 2020 Mar; 9(2):149-157. PubMed ID: 30456984 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella Registry. O'Neill WW; Schreiber T; Wohns DH; Rihal C; Naidu SS; Civitello AB; Dixon SR; Massaro JM; Maini B; Ohman EM J Interv Cardiol; 2014 Feb; 27(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 24329756 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Etiologies and predictors of 30-day readmissions in patients undergoing percutaneous mechanical circulatory support-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: Insights from the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Bavishi C; Lemor A; Trivedi V; Chatterjee S; Moreno P; Lasala J; Aronow HD; Dawn Abbott J Clin Cardiol; 2018 Apr; 41(4):450-457. PubMed ID: 29697866 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]