Search Results - Glazier, James J.

Relation: Alraies, M Chadi; Kaki, Amir; Kajy, Marvin; Blank, Nimrod; Hasan, Reema; Htun, Wah Wah; Glazier, James J.; Elder, Mahir; O’Neill, William W.; Grines, Cindy L.; Schreiber, Theodore (2020). "Sex‐related difference in the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: Insight from the cVAD registry." Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 96(3): 536-544.; https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/162726; Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions; Flaherty MP, Pant S, Patel SV, et al. Hemodynamic support with a microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device (Impella) protects against acute kidney injury in patients undergoing high‐risk percutaneous coronary InterventionNovelty and significance. Circ Res. 2017; 120 ( 4 ): 692 ‐ 700.; Ratnaparkhi D, Mahajan T, Jadhav V. Heart disease prediction system using data mining technique. Int Res J Engine Technol (IRJET). 2015; 2 ( 08 ): 2395 ‐ 0056.; Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58 ( 24 ): e44 ‐ e122.; Becher T, Baumann S, Eder F, et al. Akin I. Comparison of peri and post‐procedural complications in patients undergoing revascularisation of coronary artery multivessel disease by coronary artery bypass grafting or protected percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2017; 8 ( 4 ): 360 ‐ 368.; Dixon SR, Henriques JP, Mauri L, et al. A 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 Interv. 2009; 2 ( 2 ): 91 ‐ 96.; Sjauw KD, Konorza T, Erbel R, et al. Supported high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention with the Impella 2.5 device the Europella registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54 ( 25 ): 2430 ‐ 2434.; Maini B, Naidu SS, Mulukutla S, et al. Real‐world use of the Impella 2.5 circulatory support system in complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the USpella registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 80 ( 5 ): 717 ‐ 725.; O’neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 TM versus intra‐aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012; 126 ( 14 ): 1717 ‐ 1727.; Gharacholou SM, Alexander KP, Chen AY, et al. Implications and reasons for the lack of use of reperfusion therapy in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction: findings from the CRUSADE initiative. Am Heart J. 2010; 159 ( 5 ): 757 ‐ 763.; Glaser R, Herrmann HC, Murphy SA, et al. Benefit of an early invasive management strategy in women with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2002; 288 ( 24 ): 3124 ‐ 3129.; Blomkalns AL, Chen AY, Hochman JS, et al. Gender disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of non–ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: large‐scale observations from the CRUSADE (can rapid risk stratification of unstable angina patients suppress adverse outcomes with early implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines) national quality improvement initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45 ( 6 ): 832 ‐ 837.; Wong SC, Sleeper LA, Monrad ES, et al. Absence of gender differences in clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK trial registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38 ( 5 ): 1395 ‐ 1401.; Fengler K, Fuernau G, Desch S, et al. Gender differences in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP‐SHOCK II‐trial. Clin Res Cardiol. 2015; 104 ( 1 ): 71 ‐ 78.; Vetrovec GW, Anderson M, Schreiber T, et al. The cVAD registry for percutaneous temporary hemodynamic support: a prospective registry of Impella mechanical circulatory support use in high‐risk PCI, cardiogenic shock, and decompensated heart failure. Am Heart J. 2018; 199: 115 ‐ 121.; O’neill WW, Schreiber T, Wohns DH, 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.; Sauren LD, Accord RE, Hamzeh K, et al. Combined Impella and intra‐aortic balloon pump support to improve both ventricular unloading and coronary blood flow for myocardial recovery: an experimental study. Artif Organs. 2007; 31 ( 11 ): 839 ‐ 842.; 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.; Kawashima D, Gojo S, Nishimura T, et al. Left ventricular mechanical support with Impella provides more ventricular unloading in heart failure than extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2011; 57 ( 3 ): 169 ‐ 176.; Meyns B, Stolinski J, Leunens V, Verbeken E, Flameng W. Left ventricular support by catheter‐mountedaxial flow pump reduces infarct size. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41 ( 7 ): 1087 ‐ 1095.; Khera R, Cram P, Vaughan‐Sarrazin M, Horwitz PA, Girotra S. Use of mechanical circulatory support in percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States. Am J Cardiol. 2016; 117 ( 1 ): 10 ‐ 16.; Gaffar R, Habib B, Filion KB, Reynier P, Eisenberg MJ. Optimal timing of complete revascularization in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017; 6 ( 4 ): e005381.; Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ, et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion‐only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65 ( 10 ): 963 ‐ 972.; Rosner GF, Kirtane AJ, Genereux P, et al. Impact of the presence and extent of incomplete angiographic revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: the ACUITY trial. Circulation. 2012; 125 ( 21 ): 2613 ‐ 2620.; Vaidya SR, Devarapally SR, Arora S. Infarct related artery only versus complete revascularization in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction and multi vessel disease: a meta‐analysis. Cardiovasc Diag Ther. 2017; 7 ( 1 ): 16.; Doshi R, Singh A, Jauhar R, Meraj PM. Gender difference with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing complex high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention: from pVAD working group. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018; 8 ( 4 ): 369 ‐ 378.; Investigators S. Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the stent or surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002; 360 ( 9338 ): 965 ‐ 970.; Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, et al. Drug‐eluting stents vs. coronary‐artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358 ( 4 ): 331 ‐ 341.; Joseph SM, Brisco MA, Colvin M, Grady KL, Walsh MN, Cook JL. Gen VADWG. Women with cardiogenic shock derive greater benefit from early mechanical circulatory support: an update from the cVAD registry. J Interv Cardiol. 2016; 29 ( 3 ): 248 ‐ 256.; Pristipino C, Pelliccia F, Granatelli A, et al. Comparison of access‐related bleeding complications in women versus men undergoing percutaneous coronary catheterization using the radial versus femoral artery. Am J Cardiol. 2007; 99 ( 9 ): 1216 ‐ 1221.