Indication and short-term clinical outcomes of high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention with microaxial Impella® pump: results from the German Impella® registry

[1]  M. Borggrefe,et al.  Comparison of peri and post-procedural complications in patients undergoing revascularisation of coronary artery multivessel disease by coronary artery bypass grafting or protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device , 2019, European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care.

[2]  K. Filion,et al.  The effectiveness and safety of the Impella ventricular assist device for high‐risk percutaneous coronary interventions: A systematic review , 2018, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[3]  B. Dawn,et al.  Hemodynamic Support With a Microaxial Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device (Impella) Protects Against Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , 2017, Circulation research.

[4]  C. Grines,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Usefulness of Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Devices for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions. , 2016, The American journal of cardiology.

[5]  V. Schächinger,et al.  Description of a Heart Team approach to coronary revascularization and its beneficial long-term effect on clinical events after PCI , 2016, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[6]  F. Burzotta,et al.  Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: Collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group. , 2015, International journal of cardiology.

[7]  Peter Kruzliak,et al.  An insight into short- and long-term mechanical circulatory support systems , 2015, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[8]  J. Townend,et al.  Percutaneous Mechanical Ventricular Support in Acute Cardiac Care: A UK Quaternary Centre Experience Using 2.5L, 3.8L and 5.0L Impella Catheters , 2014, Cardiology and Therapy.

[9]  Helmut Baumgartner,et al.  2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous , 2014, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[10]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial). , 2014, The American journal of cardiology.

[11]  G. Nickenig,et al.  Combination of angiographic and clinical characteristics for the prediction of clinical outcomes in elderly patients undergoing multivessel PCI , 2013, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[12]  Samin K. Sharma,et al.  CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE Original Studies 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 Intervention , 2013 .

[13]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II , 2013, The Lancet.

[14]  I. Palacios,et al.  A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial of Hemodynamic Support With Impella 2.5 Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients Undergoing High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The PROTECT II Study , 2012, Circulation.

[15]  J. Maessen,et al.  Combined Impella and intra-aortic balloon pump support to improve both ventricular unloading and coronary blood flow for myocardial recovery: an experimental study. , 2007, Artificial organs.