Bridge-to-Bridge Strategies with IABP, Impella, and TandemHeart




A420630_1_En_4_Figb_HTML.gif


A420630_1_En_4_Figc_HTML.gif


A420630_1_En_4_Figd_HTML.gif




References



1.

Adamo L, et al. The HeartMate Risk Score identifies patients with similar mortality risk across all INTERMACS profiles in a large multicenter analysis. JACC Heart Fail. 2016;4(12):950–8.CrossrefPubMed


2.

Adamo L, et al. The Heartmate Risk Score predicts morbidity and mortality in unselected left ventricular assist device recipients and risk stratifies INTERMACS class 1 patients. JACC Heart Fail. 2015;3(4):283–90.CrossrefPubMedPubMedCentral


3.

Trachtenberg BH, Estep JD. Roads, maps, and destinations: the journey of left ventricular assist device implantation in ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2016;18(12):132.CrossrefPubMed


4.

Starling RC, et al. Risk assessment and comparative effectiveness of left ventricular assist device and medical management in ambulatory heart failure patients: the ROADMAP study 2-year results. JACC Heart Fail. 2017;5(7):518–27.CrossrefPubMed


5.

Kirklin JK, et al. Seventh INTERMACS annual report: 15,000 patients and counting. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34(12):1495–504.CrossrefPubMed


6.

Boyle AJ, et al. Clinical outcomes for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients stratified by pre-operative INTERMACS classification. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30(4):402–7.CrossrefPubMed


7.

Oz MC, et al. Screening scale predicts patients successfully receiving long-term implantable left ventricular assist devices. Circulation. 1995;92(9 Suppl):II169–73.CrossrefPubMed


8.

Oz MC, Rose EA, Levin HR. Selection criteria for placement of left ventricular assist devices. Am Heart J. 1995;129(1):173–7.CrossrefPubMed


9.

Shah P, et al. Clinical outcomes of advanced heart failure patients with cardiogenic shock treated with temporary circulatory support before durable LVAD implant. ASAIO J. 2016;62(1):20–7.CrossrefPubMed


10.

Hochman JS, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(9):625–34.CrossrefPubMed


11.

Thiele H, et al. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: design and rationale of the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial. Am Heart J. 2012;163(6):938–45.CrossrefPubMed


12.

Esposito ML, Kapur NK. Acute mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: the “door to support” time. F1000Res. 2017;6:737.CrossrefPubMedPubMedCentral


13.

Mandawat A, Rao SV. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(5).


14.

Landis ZC, et al. Severity of end-organ damage as a predictor of outcomes after implantation of left ventricular assist device. ASAIO J. 2015;61(2):127–32.CrossrefPubMed


15.

Werdan K, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2014;35(3):156–67.CrossrefPubMed


16.

Menees DS, et al. Door-to-balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing primary PCI. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):901–9.CrossrefPubMed

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Feb 24, 2018 | Posted by in CARDIOLOGY | Comments Off on Bridge-to-Bridge Strategies with IABP, Impella, and TandemHeart
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes