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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

340 related items for PubMed ID: 37076412

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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 Feb; 7(1):e001214. PubMed ID: 32201591
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. 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 15; 185():29-36. PubMed ID: 36210212
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. 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 15; 34():25-31. PubMed ID: 33549497
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Prophylactic Mechanical Circulatory Support Use in Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease.
    Zeitouni M, Marquis-Gravel G, Smilowitz NR, Zakroysky P, Wojdyla DM, Amit AP, Rao SV, Wang TY.
    Circ Cardiovasc Interv; 2022 May 15; 15(5):e011534. PubMed ID: 35580202
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. 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]

  • 14. Intra-aortic balloon pump versus percutaneous Impella© in emergency revascularisation for myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: systematic review.
    Frain K, Rees P.
    Perfusion; 2024 Jan 05; 39(1):45-59. PubMed ID: 34479465
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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 Jan 05; 80(12):1224-1231. PubMed ID: 36047958
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of mechanical circulatory support-related complications in patients with cardiogenic shock.
    Takahashi K, Kubo S, Ikuta A, Osakada K, Takamatsu M, Taguchi Y, Ohya M, Shimada T, Miura K, Tada T, Tanaka H, Fuku Y, Kadota K.
    J Cardiol; 2022 Feb 05; 79(2):163-169. PubMed ID: 34511239
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Long-term 5-year outcome of the randomized IMPRESS in severe shock trial: percutaneous mechanical circulatory support vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction.
    Karami M, Eriksen E, Ouweneel DM, Claessen BE, Vis MM, Baan J, Beijk M, Packer EJS, Sjauw KD, Engstrom A, Vlaar A, Lagrand WK, Henriques JPS.
    Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care; 2021 Dec 06; 10(9):1009-1015. PubMed ID: 34327527
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 17.