Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
By H. Thiele, P. Sick, E. Boudriot, K. Diederich, R. Hambrecht, J. Niebauer, G. Schuler. European Heart Journal, 2003
651 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Surgery
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10a2fd12cd5dcbe81c4d5c9ccf9eaad98eb6fa16
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- W. Wijns
- S. Garg
- Philippe Kolh
- Nicolas Danchin
- C. Di Mario
- Nicolaus Reifart
- Volkmar Falk
- S. Silber
Citations in the corpus
- 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. (2013, neutral): “identify HF etiology and assess prognosis (298).”
- Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. (2010, background): “III B [96,97]”
- Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. (2017, neutral): “, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) in CS, with 30-day mortality rates of 44% (n 1⁄4 41) (18) and 42% (n 1⁄4 33) (19).”