Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump During High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Cardiogenic Shock.

[1]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Cochrane corner: complete versus culprit-only revascularisation in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease , 2018, Heart.

[2]  H. Thiele,et al.  Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials , 2017, European heart journal.

[3]  J. Bauersachs,et al.  Acquired von Willebrand syndrome in cardiogenic shock patients on mechanical circulatory microaxial pump support , 2017, PloS one.

[4]  C. Gluud,et al.  Comment on: “Cell therapy for heart disease: Trial sequential analyses of two cochrane reviews” , 2017, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[5]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Complete versus culprit-only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi-vessel disease. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[6]  J. Jakobsen,et al.  Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis , 2017, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[7]  J. Tijssen,et al.  Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  M. Hernán,et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[9]  E. Simonsen,et al.  Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). , 2023, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  Xin Lu,et al.  Trends in the use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices: analysis of national inpatient sample data, 2007 through 2012. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[11]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Percutaneous circulatory assist devices for high-risk coronary intervention. , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[12]  J. Jakobsen,et al.  Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[13]  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.

[14]  D. Kolte,et al.  Trends in Incidence, Management, and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the United States , 2014, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[15]  A. Cariou,et al.  Percutaneous left ventricular assistance in post cardiac arrest shock: comparison of intra aortic blood pump and IMPELLA Recover LP2.5. , 2013, Resuscitation.

[16]  G. Schuler,et al.  Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  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.

[18]  K. Werdan,et al.  Interleukin-6, -7, -8 and -10 predict outcome in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock , 2012, Clinical Research in Cardiology.

[19]  J. Tijssen,et al.  The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: The Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience* , 2011, Critical care medicine.

[20]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Evaluating percutaneous support for cardiogenic shock: data shock and sticker shock. , 2009, European heart journal.

[21]  P. Serruys,et al.  Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. , 2009, European heart journal.

[22]  Adnan Kastrati,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. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  D. Burkhoff,et al.  A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. , 2006, American heart journal.

[24]  J. Vandenbroucke.  What is the best evidence for determining harms of medical treatment? , 2006, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[25]  G. Schuler,et al.  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. , 2003, European heart journal.

[26]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  K. Thorlund,et al.  Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.