1. Lorusso, R, Gelsomino, S, Parise, O, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock in elderly patients: Trends in application and outcome from the extracorporeal life support organization (ELSO) registry. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104:62–69.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline2. Backhaus, T, Fach, A, Schmucker, J, et al. Management and predictors of outcome in unselected patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Bremen STEMI registry. Clin Res Cardiol 2018; 107:371–379.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline3. O’Neill, WW, Schreiber, T, Wohns, DHW, et al. The current use of impella 2.5 in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the USpella registry. J Interv Cardiol 2014; 27:1–11.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI4. Cohen, M, Urban, P, Christenson, JT, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in US and non-US centres: results of the benchmark® registry. Eur Heart J 2003; 24:1763–1770.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI5. Mandawat, A, Rao, SV. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10:1–11.
Google Scholar | Crossref6. Myat, A, Patel, N, Tehrani, S, et al. Percutaneous circulatory assist devices for high-risk coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8:229–44.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Atkinson, TM, Ohman, EM, O’Neill, WW, et al. A practical approach to mechanical circulatory support in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention an interventional perspective. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9:871–883.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Burkhoff, D, Sayer, G, Doshi, D, et al. Hemodynamics of mechanical circulatory support. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66:2663–2674.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI9. Briceno, N, Kapur, NK, Perera, D. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support: current concepts and future directions. Heart 2016; 102:1494–1507.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. Burkhoff, D, Naidu, SS. The science behind percutaneous hemodynamic support: a review and comparison of support strategies. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2012; 80:816–829.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI11. Fincke, R, Hochman, JS, Lowe, AM, et al. Cardiac power is the strongest hemodynamic correlate of mortality in cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44:340–348.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI12. Patterson, T, Perera, D and, Redwood, SR. Intra-aortic balloon pump for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7:712–720.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline13. De Silva, K, Lumley, M, Kailey, B, et al. Coronary and microvascular physiology during intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 7:631–640.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Papaioannou, TG, Stefanadis, C. Basic principles of the intraaortic balloon pump and mechanisms affecting its performance. ASAIO J 2005; 51:296–300.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI15. Majithia, A, Jumean, M, Shih, H, et al. The hemodynamic effects of the MEGA Intra-Aortic balloon counterpulsation pump. J Hear Lung Transplant 2013; 32:S226.
Google Scholar | Crossref16. Pucher, PH, Cummings, IG, Shipolini, AR, et al. Is heparin needed for patients with an intra-aortic balloon pump? Interact cardiovasc thorac surg 2012; 15: 136–139.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI17. Subramaniam, AV, Barsness, GW, Vallabhajosyula, S, et al. Complications of temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: an appraisal of contemporary literature. Cardiol Ther 2019; 8:211–228.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Cheney, AE, McCabe, JM. Alternative percutaneous access for large bore devices. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12:1–10.
Google Scholar | Crossref19. Alqarqaz, M, Basir, M, Alaswad, K, et al. Effects of impella on coronary perfusion in patients with critical coronary artery stenosis.Circ Cardiovasc Interv] 2018; 11:1–8.
Google Scholar | Crossref20. Remmelink, M, Sjauw, KD, Henriques, JPS, et al. Effects of mechanical left ventricular unloading by impella on left ventricular dynamics in high-risk and primary percutaneous coronary intervention patients.Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2010; 75:187–194.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Briceno, N, Khan, SQ, Clapp, B, et al. 32 Does ‘real-world’ mechanical circulatory support match randomised controlled trials? The United Kingdom impella (Ukpella) registry.. Heart 2020; 106 (Suppl 2):A1 – A118.: 1–2.
Google Scholar22. Ouweneel, DM, de Brabander, J, Karami, M, et al. Real-life use of left ventricular circulatory support with impella in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: 12 years AMC experience. Eur Hear J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2019; 8:338–349.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI23. Dhruva, SS, Ross, JS, Mortazavi, BJ, et al. Association of use of an intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device vs intra-aortic balloon pump with in-Hospital mortality and major bleeding among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc 2020; 323:734–745.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline24. Kaki, A, Blank, N, Alraies, MC, et al. Access and closure management of large bore femoral arterial access. J Interven Cardiol 2018; 31:969–977.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline25. Anderson, M, Morris, DL, Tang, D, et al. Outcomes of patients with right ventricular failure requiring short-term hemodynamic support with the Impella RP device. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2018.08.001
Google Scholar26. Kapur, NK, Esposito, ML, Bader, Y, et al. Mechanical circulatory support devices for acute right ventricular failure. Circulation 2017; 136:314–326.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline27. Kuchibhotla, S, Esposito, ML, Breton, C, et al. Acute biventricular mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc 2017; 6:1–9.
Google Scholar | Crossref28. Alli, OO, Singh, IM, Holmes, DR, et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist device with TandemHeart for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the Mayo clinic experience.Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2012; 80:728–734.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline29. Thiele, H, Sick, P, Boudriot, E, 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. Eur Heart J 2005; 26:1276–1283.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI30. NHS . Evidence review: mechanical assist devices for circulatory support (destination therapy) in people with advanced heart failure 1 2017;1–63.
Google Scholar31. Cevasco, M, Takayama, H, Ando, M, et al. Left ventricular distension and venting strategies for patients on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Thorac Dis 2019; 11:1676–1683.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline32. Guglin, M, Zucker, MJ, Bazan, VM, et al. Venoarterial ECMO for adults: JACC scientific expert panel. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73:698–716.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline33. Rihal, CS, Naidu, SS, Givertz, MM, et al. American Heart Association (AHA), and American College of Cardiology (ACC)2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS clinical expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiovascular care: endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino America. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65:e7–26, e26.
Google Scholar34. England, TN. Complicated by cardiogenic shock. 1999; 341:625–634.
Google Scholar35. Thiele, H, Akin, I, Sandri, M, et al. One-year outcomes after PCI strategies in cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2018; 379:1699–1710.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline36. Miller, L. Cardiogenic shock in acute myocardial infarction the era of mechanical support. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67:1881–1884.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline37. Masoudi, FA, Ponirakis, A, de Lemos, JA, et al, Trends in U.S. Cardiovascular care: 2016 report from 4 ACC national cardiovascular data registries. Trends in US Cardiovascular Care: 2016 Report from 4 ACC National Cardiovascular Data Registries. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69:1427–1450.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline38. Magnus, OE, Nanas, J, Stomel, RJ, et al. Thrombolysis and counterpulsation to improve survival in myocardial infarction complicated by hypotension and suspected cardiogenic shock or heart failure: results of the TACTICS trial. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2005; 19:33–39.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline39. Burkhoff, D, Cohen, H, Brunckhorst, C, 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. Am Heart J 2006; 152:469.e1–469.e8.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI40. Seyfarth, M, Sibbing, D, Bauer, I, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 52:1584–1588.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI41. Ouweneel, DM, Eriksen, E, Sjauw, KD, et al. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus Intra-Aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69:278–287.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI42. Waksman, R, Weiss, AT, Gotsman, MS, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation improves survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 1993;
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline43. Prondzinsky, R, Unverzagt, S, Russ, M, et al. Hemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP shock trial.Shock 2012; 37:378–384.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI44. Thiele, H, Zeymer, U, Neumann, FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators 2012; 367:1287–1296.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI45. Thiele, H, Zeymer, U, Thelemann, N, et al. Intraaortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: long-term 6-Year outcome of the Randomized IABP-SHOCK II Trial. Circulation 2019; 139:395–403.
Google Scholar | Crossref46. Stone, GW, Ohman, EM, Miller, MF, et al. Contemporary utilization and outcomes of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction: the benchmark registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:1940–1945.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI47. Barron, H V., Every, NR, Parsons, LS, et al. The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: data from the national registry of myocardial infarction 2. Am Heart J 2001; 141:933–939.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI48. Ahmad, Y, Sen, S, Shun-Shin, MJ, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis.JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175:931–939.
Google Scholar |