Soporte Circulatorio Mecánico Percutáneo versus Bomba de Balón Intraaórtico en Shock Cardiogénico Tras Infarto Agudo de Miocardio

Ouweneel et al. (Mon,) estudiaron esta cuestión.

www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69f46fff58d1a5fd6677ec4a — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022

Also consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

1. Experience from a randomized controlled trial with Impella 2.5 versus IABP in STEMI patients with cardiogenic pre-shock.· 2015 · 80 citations
2. The Current Use of Impella 2.5 in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Results from the USpella Registry· 2013 · 384 citations
3. National Trends in the Utilization of Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support· 2014 · 469 citations
4. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (WMA) - Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects