CheraHHNagarMChangNL, et al. Overview of Impella and mechanical devices in cardiogenic shock. Expert Rev Med Devices2018; 15: 293–299.
2.
BassTA.High-risk percutaneous coronary interventions in modern day clinical practice: current concepts and challenges. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2015; 8: e003405.
3.
FiorelliFPanoulasV.Impella as unloading strategy during VA-ECMO: systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev Cardiovasc Med2021; 22: 1503–1511.
4.
HessNRHickeyGWMurrayHN, et al. Ambulatory simultaneous venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and temporary percutaneous left ventricular assist device bridge to heart transplantation. JTCVS Tech2022; 13: 131–134.
5.
PapolosAIKenigsbergBBBergDD, et al. Management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock in cardiac ICUs with versus without shock teams. J Am Coll Cardiol2021; 78: 1309–1317.
6.
BurzottaFPalosciaLTraniC, et al. Feasibility and long-term safety of elective Impella-assisted high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a pilot two-centre study. J Cardiovasc Med2008; 9: 1004–1010.
7.
Moura-FerreiraSLadeiras-LopesRMBalaD, et al. The role of Impella in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Rev Port Cardiol2018; 37: 623.e1–623.e4.
8.
DixonSRHenriquesJPSMauriL, et alA prospective feasibility trial investigating the use of the Impella 2.5 system in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (The PROTECT I Trial): initial U.S. experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2009; 2: 91–96.
9.
MarianiSNappLCKraaierK, et al. Prophylactic mechanical circulatory support for protected ventricular tachycardia ablation: a meta-analysis of the literature. Artif Organs2021; 45: 987–997.
10.
RamzyDAndersonMBatsidesG, et al. Early outcomes of the first 200 US patients treated with Impella 5.5: a novel temporary left ventricular assist device. Innovations2021; 16: 365–372.
11.
Le RuzRLandeGLepoivreT, et al.Electrical storm ablation in a patient in cardiogenic shock supported by Impella 5.0. JACC Case Rep2021; 3: 486–490.
KatahiraSSugimuraYMehdianiA, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting under sole Impella 5.0 support for patients with severely depressed left ventricular function. J Artif Organs2021; 25: 158–162.
14.
PatelNJVermaDRGopalanR, et al. Percutaneous biventricular mechanical circulatory support with Impella CP and Protek Duo plus TandemHeart. J Invasive Cardiol2019; 31: E46.
15.
KuchibhotlaSEspositoMLBretonC, et al. Acute biventricular mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc2017; 6: e006670.
16.
AndersonMSmithDKaneP, et al.Impella 5.5 direct aortic implant and explant techniques. Ann Thorac Surg2021; 111: e373–e375.
17.
BouhoutINguyenSNBarryOM, et al. Transinnominate Impella 5.5 insertion as a bridge to transplantation in a pediatric patient in refractory cardiogenic shock. JTCVS Tech2022; 14: 201–203.
18.
CoyanGAnandNImranM, et al. ECMO and Impella support strategies as a bridge to surgical repair of post-infarction ventricular septal rupture. Medicina2022; 58: 611.
19.
FabrizioCLevitoMNRivosecchiR, et al. Outcomes of systemic anticoagulation with bivalirudin for Impella 5.0. Int J Artif Organs2021; 44: 681–686.
20.
HohlfelderBMilitelloMATongMZ, et al. Anticoagulation with temporary Impella device in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia: a case series. Int J Artif Organs2021; 44: 367–370.
21.
ZeinRPatelCMercado-AlamoA, et al. A review of the Impella Devices. Interv Cardiol Rev Res Resour2022; 17: 5.
22.
SubramaniamAVBarsnessGWVallabhajosyulaS, et al. Complications of temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock: an appraisal of contemporary literature. Cardiol Ther2019; 8: 211–228.
23.
BadiyeAPHernandezGANovoaI, et al. Incidence of hemolysis in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with Impella percutaneous left ventricular assist device. ASAIO J2016; 62: 11–14.
24.
AliJMAbu-OmarY.Complications associated with mechanical circulatory support. Ann Transl Med2020; 8: 835–835.
25.
LautenAEngströmAEJungC, et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock: results of the Impella-EUROSHOCK-registry. Circ Heart Fail2013; 6: 23–30.
OishiHMorimotoRItoR, et al. Increased risk of purge system malfunction after Impella 5.0 replacement: a case series. J Artif Organs. Epub ahead of print 16May2022. DOI: 10.1007/S10047-022-01337-0.
28.
SuccarLDonahueKRVarnadoS, et al. Use of tissue plasminogen activator alteplase for suspected Impella thrombosis. Pharmacotherapy2020; 40: 169–173.
29.
BasirMBKapurNKPatelK, et al. Improved outcomes associated with the use of shock protocols: updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2019; 93: 1173–1183.
30.
CaseBCYerasiCForrestalBJ, et al. Real-world experience of the MANTA Closure Device: insights from the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. Cardiovasc Revasc Med2021; 27: 63–66.
31.
HessNRHickeyGWKeeblerME, et al. Left ventricular assist device bridging to heart transplantation: comparison of temporary versus durable support. J Heart Lung Transplant. Epub ahead of print 09September2022. DOI: 10.1016/J.HEALUN.2022.08.020.
