4.3 Article

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

Related references

Note: Only part of the references are listed.
Review Medicine, General & Internal

Temporary circulatory support for cardiogenic shock

Alain Combes et al.

LANCET (2020)

Article Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems

Short term outcomes of Impella in cardiogenic shock: A review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Mario Iannaccone et al.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY (2020)

Article Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems

Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish-German cardiogenic shock trial

Nanna Junker Udesen et al.

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL (2019)

Review Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems

Current perspectives on mechanical circulatory support

Rene Schramm et al.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY (2019)

Article Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems

Left Ventricular Unloading Using an Impella CP Improves Coronary Flow and Infarct Zone Perfusion in Ischemic Heart Failure

Shin Watanabe et al.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION (2018)

Article Medicine, General & Internal

One-Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock

H. Thiele et al.

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (2018)

Letter Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Treating Cardiogenic Shock Meta-Analysis

Dagmar M. Ouweneel et al.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY (2017)

Article Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems

Door to Unload: a New Paradigm for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

Navin K. Kapur et al.

CURRENT CARDIOVASCULAR RISK REPORTS (2016)

Article Medicine, General & Internal

Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

Judith S. Hochman et al.

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2006)