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…

By M. Seyfarth, D. Sibbing, Iris Bauer, G. Fröhlich, Lorenz Bott-Flügel, R. Byrne, J. Dirschinger, A. Kastrati, A. Schömig. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2008

1,044 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Epidemiology, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1a052c7522195d5af6f7c77b65cf47afe38355e0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. C. Yancy
2. B. Bozkurt
3. M. Jessup
4. G. Fonarow
5. J. Butler
6. J. Januzzi
7. T. Horwich
8. M. Drazner

Citations in the corpus

• 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. (2019, neutral): “When compared with IABP, VAECMO provides superior circulatory support.(264,265) Moreover, a meta-analysis of observational studies suggested that in patients with”
• 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, background): “clinical outcomes and mortality (253, 257, 263); decrease in troponin levels over time with treatment is”
• Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. (2017, background): “Overall mortality was 46% in both groups (15).”
• Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. (2010, methodology): “III B [97,100, 101]”