Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation

Search Page

Filters

My Custom Filters

Publication date

Text availability

Article attribute

Article type

Additional filters

Article Language

Species

Sex

Age

Other

Search Results

583 results

Filters applied: . Clear all
Results are displayed in a computed author sort order. The Publication Date timeline is not available.
Page 1
Impact of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump on prognostically important clinical outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (from the PROTECT II randomized trial).
Dangas GD, Kini AS, Sharma SK, Henriques JP, Claessen BE, Dixon SR, Massaro JM, Palacios I, Popma JJ, Ohman M, Stone GW, O'Neill WW. Dangas GD, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2014 Jan 15;113(2):222-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.09.008. Am J Cardiol. 2014. PMID: 24527505 Clinical Trial.
A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study.
O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, Henriques JP, Dixon S, Massaro J, Palacios I, Maini B, Mulukutla S, Dzavík V, Popma J, Douglas PS, Ohman M. O'Neill WW, et al. Circulation. 2012 Oct 2;126(14):1717-27. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098194. Epub 2012 Aug 30. Circulation. 2012. PMID: 22935569 Clinical Trial.
Evaluating the learning curve in the prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: a prespecified subanalysis of the PROTECT II study.
Henriques JP, Ouweneel DM, Naidu SS, Palacios IF, Popma J, Ohman EM, O'Neill WW. Henriques JP, et al. Am Heart J. 2014 Apr;167(4):472-479.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.12.018. Epub 2014 Jan 3. Am Heart J. 2014. PMID: 24655695 Clinical Trial.
Comparison of the use of hemodynamic support in patients ≥80 years versus patients <80 years during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (from the Multicenter PROTECT II Randomized Study).
Pershad A, Fraij G, Massaro JM, David SW, Kleiman NS, Denktas AE, Wilson BH, Dixon SR, Ohman EM, Douglas PS, Moses JW, O'Neill WW. Pershad A, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2014 Sep 1;114(5):657-64. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.05.055. Epub 2014 Jun 18. Am J Cardiol. 2014. PMID: 25037676 Clinical Trial.
Patients with 3-vessel coronary artery disease and impaired ventricular function undergoing PCI with Impella 2.5 hemodynamic support have improved 90-day outcomes compared to intra-aortic balloon pump: a sub-study of the PROTECT II trial.
Kovacic JC, Kini A, Banerjee S, Dangas G, Massaro J, Mehran R, Popma J, O'Neill WW, Sharma SK. Kovacic JC, et al. J Interv Cardiol. 2015 Feb;28(1):32-40. doi: 10.1111/joic.12166. J Interv Cardiol. 2015. PMID: 25689546 Free article. Clinical Trial.
583 results