Skip Navigation


European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on July 20, 2009
European Heart Journal 2009 30(17):2073-2075; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp274
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
30/17/2073    most recent
ehp274v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in EHJ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Desai, N. R.
Right arrow Articles by Bhatt, D. L.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Desai, N. R.
Right arrow Articles by Bhatt, D. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2009. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Evaluating percutaneous support for cardiogenic shock: data shock and sticker shock

Nihar R. Desai1 and Deepak L. Bhatt2,*

1 Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
2 VA Boston Healthcare System and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

* Corresponding author. Tel: +1 857 203 6840/6841, Fax: +1 857 203 5550, Email: dlbhattmd@alum.mit.edu

This editorial refers to ‘Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials’{dagger}, by J.M. Cheng et al., on page 2102

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Cardiogenic shock, a state of systemic hypoperfusion resulting from cardiovascular dysfunction, is the leading cause of death in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).1 In spite of tremendous advances in cardiovascular care over the past two decades, mortality rates for patients with cardiogenic shock remain quite high, with some estimates as high as 50%.2 Given the underlying pathophysiology of cardiogenic shock, most commonly attributed to left ventricular failure resulting from STEMI, prompt institution of mechanical circulatory support seems intuitively important. The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) counterpulsation device was first introduced in the 1960s and has gained widespread acceptance as the device of choice for most patients with cardiogenic shock. Registry data suggest that cardiogenic shock is one of the most common conditions for which IABPs are used, accounting for 20% of all insertions.3 In fact, the ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines on STEMI strongly endorse the placement of an IABP in . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in EHJ:

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials
Jin M. Cheng, Corstiaan A. den Uil, Sanne E. Hoeks, Martin van der Ent, Lucia S.D. Jewbali, Ron T. van Domburg, and Patrick W. Serruys
EHJ 2009 30: 2102-2108. [Abstract] [Full Text]