Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.Outcomes of Impella-supported high-risk nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention in a large single-center registry
Lorenzo Azzalini et al.
CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS (2021)
The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support
Amit P. Amin et al.
CIRCULATION (2020)
Six months follow-up of protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the microaxial Impella pump: results from the German Impella registry
Stefan Baumann et al.
CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE (2020)
Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Sanket S. Dhruva et al.
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2020)
Observational multicentre registry of patients treated with IMPella mechanical circulatory support device in ITaly: the IMP-IT registry
Alaide Chieffo et al.
EUROINTERVENTION (2020)
Long-Term Outcomes of Extent of Revascularization in Complex High Risk and Indicated Patients Undergoing Impella-Protected Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Report from the Roma-Verona Registry
Francesco Burzotta et al.
JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY (2019)
The Value of Left Ventricular Support in Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Function Undergoing Extensive Revascularization An Analysis From the PROTECT-II Randomized Trial
David A. Burke et al.
JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS (2019)
Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump During High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Cardiogenic Shock
Saul A. Rios et al.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY (2018)
2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care
Charanjit S. Rihal et al.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY (2015)
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)
George D. Dangas et al.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY (2014)
Validity of Myocardial Infarction Diagnoses in Administrative Databases: A Systematic Review
Natalie McCormick et al.
PLOS ONE (2014)
Real-world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: The USpella Registry
Brijeshwar Maini et al.
CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS (2012)
A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Hemodynamic Support With Impella 2.5 Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention The PROTECT II Study
William W. O'Neill et al.
CIRCULATION (2012)
2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions
Glenn N. Levine et al.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY (2011)
A Prospective Feasibility Trial Investigating the Use of the Impel la 2.5 System in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (The PROTECT I Trial) Initial US Experience
Simon R. Dixon et al.
JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS (2009)
Assessing validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions in a unique dually coded database
Hude Quan et al.
HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH (2008)
Share Paper
