Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

By D. Ouweneel, E. Eriksen, K. Sjauw, I. M. V. Dongen, A. Hirsch, E. Packer, M. Vis, J. Wykrzykowska, K. Koch, J. Baan and 6 more. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2017

787 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cde50c77f396a9cee0a88116e40cfc339628ff13

How researchers see this paper

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

1. J. Nolan
2. C. Sandroni
3. B. Böttiger
4. J. Soar
5. B. Ibáñez
6. A. Cariou
7. T. Cronberg
8. S. James

Citations in the corpus

• 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. (2017, background): “A small exploratory trial studying the Impella CP percutaneous circulatory support device did not find any benefit compared with IABP in AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.(429) Mechanical LV assist devices (LVADs), including percutaneous short-term mechanical circulatory support devices (i.”
• European Resuscitation Council and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Guidelines 2021: Post-resuscitation care. (2021, result): “In patients with cardiogenic shock without cardiac arrest some centres still advocate use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), although the IABP-SHOCK II Trial failed to show that use of the IABP improved 30-day mortality in patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock [172, 173].”