Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock: a critical appraisal

References

• Karami M, den Uil CA, Ouweneel DM, et al. Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction: impella CP/5.0 versus ECMO. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2020;9(2):164–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vahdatpour C, Collins D, Goldberg S. Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(8):1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Tehrani BN, Truesdell AG, Psotka MA, et al. A Standardized and Comprehensive Approach to the Management of Cardiogenic Shock. JACC Heart Fail. 2020;8(11):879–891.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thiele H, de Waha-thiele S, Freund A, et al. Management of cardiogenic shock. EuroIntervention. 2021;17(6):451–465.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: this document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Societ. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions.2019. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28329.
   Google Scholar
• Shah AH, Puri R, Kalra A. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a review. Clin Cardiol. 2019;42(4):484–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obradovic D, Freund A, Feistritzer HJ, et al. Temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;69:35–46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab368.
   Google Scholar
• Tehrani BN, Damluji AA, Batchelor WB. Acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock Interventional approach to management in the cardiac catheterization laboratories. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2021;17. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2174/1573403X17666211125090929.
   Google Scholar
• Werdan K, Buerke M, Geppert A, et al. Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock- Diagnosis, Monitoring and Therapy–A German-Austrian S3 Guideline. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2021;118(6):88–95.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boeken U, Assmann A, Beckmann A, et al. Extracorporeal Circulation (ECLS/ECMO) for Cardio-circulatory Failure-Summary of the S3 Guideline. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;69(6):483–489.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parissis H, Graham V, Lampridis S, et al. IABP: history-evolution-pathophysiology-indications: what we need to know. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;11(1). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-016-0513-0
   Google Scholar
• Kimman JR, Van Mieghem NM, Endeman H, et al. Mechanical Support in Early Cardiogenic Shock: what Is the Role of Intra-aortic Balloon Counterpulsation? Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2020;17(5):247–260.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kern MJ, Aguirre F, Bach R, et al. Augmentation of coronary blood flow by intra-aortic balloon pumping in patients after coronary angioplasty. Circulation. 1993;87(2):500–511.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bastos MB, Burkhoff D, Maly J, et al. Invasive left ventricle pressure-volume analysis: overview and practical clinical implications. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:1286–1297.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baldetti L, Pagnesi M, Gramegna M, et al. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure With Hypoperfusion: from Pathophysiology to Clinical Practice. Circ Heart Fail. 2021;14(11):e008527.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morici N, Marini C, Sacco A, et al. Intra-aortic Balloon Pump for Acute-on-Chronic Heart Failure Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. J Card Fail. 2021. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CARDFAIL.2021.11.009.
   Google Scholar
• Prondzinsky R, Lemm H, Swyter M, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP SHOCK Trial for attenuation of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(1):152–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baran DA, Visveswaran GK, Seliem A, et al. Differential responses to larger volume intra‐aortic balloon counterpulsation: hemodynamic and clinical outcomes. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2018;92(4):703.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fried JA, Nair A, Takeda K, et al. Clinical and hemodynamic effects of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in chronic heart failure patients with cardiogenic shock. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2018;37(11):1313–1321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moulopoulos S, Stamatelopoulos S, Petrou P. Intraaortic balloon assistance in intractable cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 1986;7(5):396–403.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson RD, Ohman EM, Holmes DR, et al. Use of Intraaortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Patients Presenting with Cardiogenic Shock: observations from the GUSTO-I Study. Global Utilization of Streptokinase and TPA for Occluded Coronary Arteries. 1997.
   Google Scholar
• 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;14(1):71–74.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thiele H, Schuler G, Neumann FJ, 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):938–945.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): fi nal 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. 2013;382:1638–1645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(3):395–403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unverzagt S, Buerke M, de Waha A, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007398.pub3.
   Google Scholar
• O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.019.
   Google Scholar
• Chera HH, Nagar M, Chang NL, et al. Overview of Impella and mechanical devices in cardiogenic shock. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018;15(4):293–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith BP, Anderson MB, Samuels LE, et al. The RECOVER I: a multicenter prospective study of Impella 5.0/LD for postcardiotomy circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145(2):548–554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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):1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(19):1584–1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cubeddu RJ, Lago R, Horvath SA, et al. Use of the Impella 2.5 system alone, after and in combination with an intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock: case description and review of the literature. EuroIntervention. 2012;7(12):1453–1460.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022.
   Google Scholar
• 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. 2020. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.0254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, et al. Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation. 2019;139(10):1249–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(6):776–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele H, Lauer B, Hambrecht R, et al. Reversal of cardiogenic shock by percutaneous left atrial-to-femoral arterial bypass assistance. Circulation. 2001;104(24):2917–2922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith LV, Peters A, Mazimba S, et al. Outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with TandemHeart ® percutaneous ventricular assist device: importance of support indication and definitive therapies as determinants of prognosis. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2018;92(6):1173–1181.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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(13):1276–1283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(3):469.e1–469.e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kar B, Gregoric ID, Basra SS, et al. The percutaneous ventricular assist device in severe refractory cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(6):688–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong ASK, Sin SWC. Short-term mechanical circulatory support (intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, TandemHeart): a review. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-2171.
   Google Scholar
• Chlebowski MM, Baltagi S, Carlson M, et al. Clinical controversies in anticoagulation monitoring and antithrombin supplementation for ECMO. Crit Care. 2020;24(1). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2726-9
   Google Scholar
• Combes A, Leprince P, Luyt CE, et al. Outcomes and long-term quality-of-life of patients supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(5):1404–1411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller G, Flecher E, Lebreton G, et al. The ENCOURAGE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(3):370–378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheu JJ, Tsai TH, Lee FY, et al. Early extracorporeal membrane oxygenator-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention improved 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction complicated with profound cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(9):1810–1817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemor A, Hosseini Dehkordi SH, Basir MB, et al. Impella Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock. Cardiovasc Revascularization Med. 2020;21(12):1465–1471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thiele H, Freund A, Gimenez MR, et al. Extracorporeal life support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock - Design and rationale of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. Am Heart J. 2021;234:1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banning AS, Adriaenssens T, Berry C, et al. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, open-label EURO SHOCK trial. EuroIntervention. 2021;16(15):E1227–E1236.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Balthazar T, Vandenbriele C, Verbrugge FH, et al. Managing Patients With Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(9):1243–1256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunkel KJ, Fuller B, Basir MB. Management of Cardiogenic Shock in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2021;10(3):345–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lemor A, Ya’qoub L, Basir MB. Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2021;10(2):169–184.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schrage B, Beer BN, Savarese G, et al. Eligibility for mechanical circulatory support devices based on current and past randomised cardiogenic shock trials. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2021;23(11):1942–1951.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berg DD, Barnett CF, Kenigsberg BB, et al. Clinical practice patterns in temporary mechanical circulatory support for shock in the critical care cardiology trials network (ccctn) registry. Circulation. 2019;12(11). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006635
   Google Scholar
• Garan AR, Kanwar M, Thayer KL, et al. Complete Hemodynamic Profiling With Pulmonary Artery Catheters in Cardiogenic Shock Is Associated With Lower In-Hospital Mortality. JACC Heart Fail. 2020;8(11):903–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chieffo A, Dudek D, Hassager C, et al. Joint EAPCI/ACVC expert consensus document on percutaneous ventricular assist devices. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2021;10(5):570–583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Udesen NJ, Møller JE, Lindholm MG, et al. Rationale and design of DanGer shock: danish-German cardiogenic shock trial. Am Heart J. 2019;214:60–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson MB, Goldstein J, Milano C, et al. Benefits of a novel percutaneous ventricular assist device for right heart failure: the prospective RECOVER RIGHT study of the Impella RP device. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2015;34(12):1549–1560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randhawa VK, Al-Fares A, Tong MZY, et al. A Pragmatic Approach to Weaning Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: a State-of-the-Art Review. JACC Heart Fail. 2021;9(9):664–673.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eleuteri K, Koerner MM, Horstmanshof D, et al. Temporary Circulatory Support and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Cardiol Clin. 2018;36(4):473–485.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rab T, Ratanapo S, Kern KB, et al. Cardiac Shock Care Centers: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(16):1972–1980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esposito ML, Jablonski J, Kras A, et al. Maximum level of mobility with axillary deployment of the impella 5.0 is associated with improved survival. Int J Artif Organs. 2018;41(4):236–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaki A, Blank N, Alraies MC, et al. Axillary Artery Access for Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Patients With Prohibitive Peripheral Arterial Disease Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock. Am J Cardiol. 2019;123(10):1715–1721.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Seto AH, Abu-Fadel MS, Sparling JM, et al. Real-time ultrasound guidance facilitates femoral arterial access and reduces vascular complications: FAUST (Femoral Arterial Access with Ultrasound Trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(7):751–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long A, Baran DA. Lingua Franca of Cardiogenic Shock: speaking the Same Language. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.691232
   Google Scholar
• Baran DA, Long A, Badiye AP, et al. Prospective validation of the SCAI shock classification: single center analysis. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2020;96(7):1339–1347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson ID, Tagami T, Mando R, et al. SCAI shock classification in acute myocardial infarction: insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2020;96(6):1137–1142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schrage B, Dabboura S, Yan I, et al. Application of the SCAI classification in a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2020;96(3). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28707
   Google Scholar
• Tarantini G, Masiero G, Burzotta F, et al. Timing of Impella implantation and outcomes in cardiogenic shock or high-risk percutaneous coronary revascularization. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2021;98(2). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29674
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer A, Westenfeld R, Sieweke JT, et al. Complete Revascularisation in Impella-Supported Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock Patients Is Associated With Improved Mortality. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.678748.
   Google Scholar
• Aurigemma C, Burzotta F, Chieffo A, et al. Clinical Impact of Revascularization Extent in Patients Undergoing Impella-Protected PCI Enrolled in a Nationwide Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(6):717–719.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sharma S, Ghuneim A, Patel K, et al. TIMING OF IMPELLA USE IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION WITH CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: a META-ANALYSIS. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75(11):1497.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basir MB, Schreiber T, Dixon S, et al. Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2018;91(3):454–461.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hemradj S, Karami M, Sjauw KD, et al. Pre-PCI versus immediate post-PCI Impella initiation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7):e0235762.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pieri M, Pappalardo F. Impella RP in the Treatment of Right Ventricular Failure: what We Know and Where We Go. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018;32(5):2339–2343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrozzini M, Merlanti B, Olivieri GM, et al. Percutaneous RVAD with the Protek Duo for severe right ventricular primary graft dysfunction after heart transplant. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021;40(7):580–583.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ravichandran AK, Baran DA, Stelling K, et al. Outcomes with the tandem protek duo dual-lumen percutaneous right ventricular assist device. ASAIO J. 2018;64(4):570–572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal N, Hameed F, Battel L, et al. CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN ACUTE RIGHT VENTRICULAR FAILURE WITH PERCUTANEOUS RIGHT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICES: IMPELLA RP AND PROTEK DUO. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(18):634.
   Google Scholar
• Salna M, Garan AR, Kirtane AJ, et al. Novel percutaneous dual-lumen cannula-based right ventricular assist device provides effective support for refractory right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020;30(4):499–506.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kapur NK, Whitehead EH, Thayer KL, et al. The science of safety: complications associated with the use of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock and best practices to maximize safety. F1000Res. 2020;9:794.
   Google Scholar
• Bertoldi LF, Delmas C, Hunziker P, et al. Escalation and de-escalation of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J Suppl. 2021;23(Supplement_A):A35–A40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• den Uil CA, Lagrand WK, van der Ent M, et al. Impaired microcirculation predicts poor outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(24):3032–3039.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Samsky M, Krucoff M, Althouse AD, et al. Clinical and regulatory landscape for cardiogenic shock: a report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium ThinkTank on cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J. 2020;219. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2019.10.006.
   Google Scholar
• Kontos MC, Gunderson MR, Zegre-Hemsey JK, et al. Prehospital Activation of Hospital Resources (PreAct) ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI): a Standardized Approach to Prehospital Activation and Direct to the Catheterization Laboratory for STEMI Recommendations From the American Heart Association’s Mission: lifeline Program. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(2). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.011963
   Google Scholar
• Papolos AI, Kenigsberg BB, Berg DD, et al. Management and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Cardiac ICUs With Versus Without Shock Teams. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;78(13):1309–1317.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim DH. Mechanical Circulatory Support in Cardiogenic Shock: shock Team or Bust? Can J Cardiol. 2020;36(2):197–204.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al. Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: a Scientific Statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136(16). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000525
   Google Scholar
• Tehrani BN, Truesdell AG, Sherwood MW, et al. Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(13):1659–1669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basir MB, Kapur NK, Patel K, et al. Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2019;93(7):1173–1183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taleb I, Koliopoulou AG, Tandar A, et al. Shock Team Approach in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: a Proof of Concept. Circulation. 2019;140(1):98–100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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(2). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40119-019-00152-8
   Google Scholar
• Moghaddam N, van Diepen S, So D, et al. Cardiogenic shock teams and centres: a contemporary review of multidisciplinary care for cardiogenic shock. ESC Heart Fail. 2021;8(2). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13180
   Google Scholar
• Burzotta F, Trani C, Doshi SN, et al. Impella ventricular support in clinical practice: collaborative viewpoint from a European expert user group. Int J Cardiol. 2015;201. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.07.065.
   Google Scholar
• Esposito ML, Morine KJ, Annamalai SK, et al. Increased Plasma-Free Hemoglobin Levels Identify Hemolysis in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock and a Trans valvular Micro-Axial Flow Pump. Artif Organs. 2019;43(2):125–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim Y, Shapero K, Ahn SS, et al. Outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interventions. 2021. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.29834
   Google Scholar
• Vallabhajosyula S, Prasad A, Sandhu GS, et al. Ten-year trends, predictors and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. EuroIntervention. 2021;16(15):e1254–e1261.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Mortazavi BJ, et al. Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. JAMA network open. 2021;4(2):e2037748.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chieffo A, Ancona MB, Burzotta F, et al. Observational multicentre registry of patients treated with IMPella mechanical circulatory support device in Italy: the IMP-IT registry. EuroIntervention. 2020;15(15):e1343–e1350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauten A, Engström AE, Jung C, et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the impella-2.5-assist device in acute cardiogenic shock results of the impella-EUROSHOCK-Registry. Circulation. 2013;6(1):23–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar