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.
2. A prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (The PROTECT I Trial): initial U.S. experience. Dixon SR, Henriques JP, Mauri L, Sjauw K, Civitello A, Kar B, Loyalka P, Resnic FS, Teirstein P, Makkar R, Palacios IF, Collins M, Moses J, Benali K, O'Neill WW. JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2009 Feb; 2(2):91-6. PubMed ID: 19463408 [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 15; 113(2):222-8. PubMed ID: 24527505 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Angiographic Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing Impella-Supported High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the cVAD PROTECT III Study. Bharadwaj AS, Abu-Much A, Maini AS, Zhou Z, Li Y, Batchelor WB, Grines CL, Baron SJ, Redfors B, Lansky AJ, Basir MB, O'Neill WW. Circ Cardiovasc Interv; 2024 Jul 15; 17(7):e013503. PubMed ID: 38708609 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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 15; 23(10):417-24. PubMed ID: 21972160 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Elective intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. Perera D, Stables R, Thomas M, Booth J, Pitt M, Blackman D, de Belder A, Redwood S, BCIS-1 Investigators. JAMA; 2010 Aug 25; 304(8):867-74. PubMed ID: 20736470 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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 04; 52(19):1584-8. PubMed ID: 19007597 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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 01; 114(5):657-64. PubMed ID: 25037676 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Performance of currently available risk models in a cohort of mechanically supported high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention--From the PROTECT II randomized trial. Henriques JP, Claessen BE, Dangas GD, Kirtane AJ, Popma JJ, Massaro JM, Cohen BM, Ohman EM, Moses JW, O'Neill WW. Int J Cardiol; 2015 Sep 01; 189():272-8. PubMed ID: 25909982 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Multicenter international registry of unprotected left main coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in patients with myocardial infarction. Lee MS, Sillano D, Latib A, Chieffo A, Zoccai GB, Bhatia R, Sheiban I, Colombo A, Tobis J. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv; 2009 Jan 01; 73(1):15-21. PubMed ID: 19089930 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Use of the Impella 2.5 for prophylactic circulatory support during elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Alasnag MA, Gardi DO, Elder M, Kannam H, Ali F, Petrina M, Kheterpal V, Hout MS, Schreiber TL. Cardiovasc Revasc Med; 2011 Jan 01; 12(5):299-303. PubMed ID: 21454139 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, Werner N, Sinning JM, Pappalardo F, Pieri M, Skurk C, Lauten A, Landmesser U, Westenfeld R, Horn P, Pauschinger M, Eckner D, Twerenbold R, Nordbeck P, Salinger T, Abel P, Empen K, Busch MC, Felix SB, Sieweke JT, Møller JE, Pareek N, Hill J, MacCarthy P, Bergmann MW, Henriques JPS, Möbius-Winkler S, Schulze PC, Ouarrak T, Zeymer U, Schneider S, Blankenberg S, Thiele H, Schäfer A, Westermann D. Circulation; 2019 Mar 05; 139(10):1249-1258. PubMed ID: 30586755 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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 05; 35(9):893-901. PubMed ID: 21819436 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease and impaired ventricular function undergoing PCI with Impella 2.5 hemodynamic support have improved 90-day outcomes compared to intra-aortic balloon pump: a sub-study of the PROTECT II trial. Kovacic JC, Kini A, Banerjee S, Dangas G, Massaro J, Mehran R, Popma J, O'Neill WW, Sharma SK. J Interv Cardiol; 2015 Feb 05; 28(1):32-40. PubMed ID: 25689546 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Next] [New Search]