Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5.
about
Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shockTemporary mechanical circulatory support: a review of the options, indications, and outcomesTreatment strategies for patients with an INTERMACS I profileMechanical circulatory support in acute cardiogenic shockThe current use of Impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella RegistryEmergency cardiac surgery in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a review of the evidence and perioperative implications of medical and mechanical therapeutics.Successful use of the Impella device in giant cell myocarditis as a bridge to permanent left ventricular mechanical support.The Impella Recover 2.5 and TandemHeart ventricular assist devices are safe and associated with equivalent clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary interventionReal-world supported unprotected left main percutaneous coronary intervention with impella device; data from the USpella registry.Use of impella ventricular assist device in patients with severe coronary artery disease presenting with cardiac arrestPercutaneous left ventricular assist device in high risk percutaneous coronary intervention.Percutaneous mechanical cardiac assist in myocardial infarction. Where are we now, where are we going?First Canadian experience with high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with assistance of a percutaneously deployed left ventricular assist device.Miniaturization of mechanical circulatory support systemsCardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction and outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention.The Duration of Impella 2.5 Circulatory Support and Length of Hospital Stay of Patients Undergoing High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention.Percutaneous devices to support the left ventricle.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 InterventiEffect of percutaneous ventricular assist devices on renal function.Defining the role for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for medically refractory heart failure.Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support in PCI.The evolution of temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices: a review of the options and evidence in cardiogenic shock.Percutaneous ventricular assist devices: new deus ex machina?Novel percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices and their expanding applications.Utility of adjunctive modalities in Coronary chronic total occlusion intervention.High-risk acute coronary syndrome in a patient with coronary subclavian steal syndrome secondary to critical subclavian artery stenosis.Acute complication due to impella 2.5 device (superficial femoral artery thrombosis): managed successfully with novel aspiration thrombectomy catheter (pronto v3).Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support (Impella) in Patients with Advanced Heart Failure and/or Cardiogenic Shock Not Eligible to PROTECT II Trial.Displacement of impella post chest compressions.First experiences with a combined usage of veno-arterial and veno-venous ECMO in therapy-refractory cardiogenic shock patients with cerebral hypoxemia.Percutaneous cardiac assist devices compared with surgical hemodynamic support alternatives: cost-effectiveness in the emergent setting.Comparison of Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: vascular complications and incidence of bleeding.Optimizing rotational atherectomy in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: insights from the PROTECT ΙΙ study.The role of acute circulatory support in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.Utilization of the Impella for hemodynamic support during percutaneous intervention and cardiogenic shock: an insight.The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review.In vitro comparison of support capabilities of intra-aortic balloon pump and Impella 2.5 left percutaneous.
P2860
Q24235462-650277B0-698C-49B8-ABAE-BB0F7D8D41B4Q26824537-DB723FC5-E13A-4FC4-8237-ECFC72604343Q28085492-2571962E-4055-4C7B-909E-AEDFB5B52C2BQ34312460-A3F0636C-B86E-41D7-BA05-EC5B91B8D408Q34548705-D1FB3413-196D-4627-8E64-5ACBBC65F441Q34716730-AA52C466-B552-4774-A9F5-2A724A557721Q35138284-4B654BD5-F886-4F31-B310-3445C34E0A71Q36335878-60AF8174-D5B8-4532-93AE-E44466370D6BQ36349327-13D258A2-D3BF-44EE-A1D5-AE9DC9F43EC4Q36627565-1E467089-1400-46EB-B8FA-B930112BAE8AQ36724085-9496C674-C386-4052-A8D4-D6A7E57CD9EEQ36966769-57AB4A87-5F7F-4C24-B93A-969039290658Q37101801-F172CD71-1CE8-43E7-A85F-F59A35CEA712Q37260151-3A824B65-9989-40EF-BD35-66067B2AB323Q37313224-15C89C9F-694B-4704-A356-30E4F2B27AECQ37711356-7A1915B1-A347-412D-88FC-B42E8B03071CQ37786641-25AEB203-6321-4D99-AB88-65761C115C73Q37949622-A0FE07E9-E210-4DDB-9F4E-CCEE8C8320E4Q37953885-CDAA549B-2834-455B-B45B-85B8BD266E12Q38076225-99121F13-F748-4C7A-9A16-F39B3B633146Q38079766-91F84CED-19B0-436F-9762-94E6C72EA593Q38418516-AE824FF1-3DFD-4E2C-9835-4DB0B8179A4BQ38433822-DCC722FD-166A-4ECF-B088-955BA263C4CBQ38757586-219E10A6-E6C1-4176-A695-EE554821D416Q38906507-C34564FC-F778-4C28-9AF1-DC56C1EBEB87Q39397043-52A4DC17-B7B0-4F4C-84EE-6893A120622FQ41997995-73264E5C-713E-4F91-9F1A-E751CB4E8321Q42117537-40F10BFB-0449-4B9F-9C0D-473A1466A6B9Q42135102-4C095C58-62B0-46ED-B5F3-7912BA4AB998Q42977943-5FF2EFF7-FB7F-43FF-B928-620EBBB02E96Q43439511-8EB72483-8E52-452C-BC33-0A9DDD751A85Q43802600-80264DEB-4775-4503-8407-B67FA4EA1268Q43852728-029C4B67-08E0-47DF-82ED-3E6B35E2FEBEQ44528998-499943BC-E8E8-4384-B9E0-34B50FFF54FCQ47425361-7D3E4A49-25ED-4E7B-93EB-E6443CBAC248Q47552537-A267D707-0869-496F-AC2D-A4E8D4190855Q47642907-B0B6AB6E-8FD7-49A8-9D88-B9727D2E2BB1Q48811835-41A193DE-BAAF-4237-83A6-C1B0BC39E5B6
P2860
Safety and feasibility of elective high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention procedures with left ventricular support of the Impella Recover LP 2.5.
description
2006 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2006年の論文
@ja
2006年学术文章
@wuu
2006年学术文章
@zh
2006年学术文章
@zh-cn
2006年学术文章
@zh-hans
2006年学术文章
@zh-my
2006年学术文章
@zh-sg
2006年學術文章
@yue
2006年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
Safety and feasibility of elec ...... of the Impella Recover LP 2.5.
@en
Safety and feasibility of elec ...... of the Impella Recover LP 2.5.
@nl
type
label
Safety and feasibility of elec ...... of the Impella Recover LP 2.5.
@en
Safety and feasibility of elec ...... of the Impella Recover LP 2.5.
@nl
prefLabel
Safety and feasibility of elec ...... of the Impella Recover LP 2.5.
@en
Safety and feasibility of elec ...... of the Impella Recover LP 2.5.
@nl
P2093
P1476
Safety and feasibility of elec ...... of the Impella Recover LP 2.5.
@en
P2093
Bas A J M de Mol
Evert W Scholten
Jan G P Tijssen
Jan J Piek
José P S Henriques
Karel T Koch
Marije M Vis
Maurice Remmelink
René J van der Schaaf
P304
P356
10.1016/J.AMJCARD.2005.10.037
P407
P577
2006-02-13T00:00:00Z