Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: it is not just a matter of device
- PMID: 36952388
- DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001452
Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: it is not just a matter of device
Comment on
-
Clinical Outcomes and Cost Associated With an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Patients Presenting With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock.JAMA Intern Med. 2022 Sep 1;182(9):926-933. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.2735. JAMA Intern Med. 2022. PMID: 35849410 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Samsky MD, Morrow DA, Proudfoot AG, Hochman JS, Thiele H, Rao SV. Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: a review. JAMA 2021; 326:1840–1850.
-
- Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52:1584–1588.
-
- Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69:278–287.
-
- Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, et al. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation 2019; 139:1249–1258.
-
- Basir MB, Kapur NK, Patel K, et al. National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators. Improved outcomes associated with the use of shock protocols: updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 93:1173–1183.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
