Interventional Cardiology. Группа авторов

of Int Med. 2008; 149(9):618–26.

      10 10 Goldberg RJ, Spencer FA, Gore JM, et al. Thirty‐year trends (1975 to 2005) in the magnitude of, management of, and hospital death rates associated with cardiogenic shock in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a population‐based perspective. Circulation. 2009; 119(9):1211–9.

      11 11 Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intra‐aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP‐SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open‐label trial. The Lancet. 2013; 382(9905):1638–45.

      12 12 French JK, Armstrong PW, Cohen E, et al. Cardiogenic shock and heart failure post‐percutaneous coronary intervention in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: observations from “Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction”. Am Heart J. 2011; 162(1):89–97.

      13 13 Hasdai D, Califf RM, Thompson TD, et al. Predictors of cardiogenic shock after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35(1):136–43.

      14 14 American College of Emergency P, Society for Cardiovascular A, Interventions, O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST‐elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(4):e78–140.

      15 15 Sleeper LA, Ramanathan K, Picard MH, et al. Functional status and quality of life after emergency revascularization for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46(2):266–73.

      16 16 White HD, Assmann SF, Sanborn TA, et al. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial. Circulation. 2005; 112(13):1992–2001.

      17 17 Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. One‐Year Outcomes after PCI Strategies in Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(18):1699–710.

      18 18 Neumann FJ, Sousa‐Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019; 40(2):87–165.

      19 19 Ouweneel DM, Henriques JP. Percutaneous cardiac support devices for cardiogenic shock: current indications and recommendations. Heart. 2012; 98(16):1246–54.

      20 20 Prondzinsky R, Unverzagt S, Russ M, et al. Hemodynamic effects of intra‐aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the prospective, randomized IABP shock trial. Shock. 2012; 37(4):378–84.

      21 21 Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(14):1287–96.

      22 22 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):1584–8.

      23 23 Engstrom AE, Cocchieri R, Driessen AH, et al. The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST‐elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: the Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience. Critical Care Medicine. 2011; 39(9):2072–9.

      24 24 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. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2014; 27(1):1–11.

      25 25 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.

      26 26 Amin AP, Spertus JA, Curtis JP, et al. The Evolving Landscape of Impella Use in the United States Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Mechanical Circulatory Support. Circulation. 2020; 141(4):273–84.

      27 27 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; 69(3):278–87.

      28 28 Udesen NJ, Moller JE, Lindholm MG, et al. Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish‐German cardiogenic shock trial. Am Heart J. 2019; 214:60–8.

      29 29 Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, O'Neill WW, TandemHeart Investigators G. 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 e1–8.

      30 30 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):1276–83.

      31 31 Lamhaut L, Hutin A, Puymirat E, et al. A Pre‐Hospital Extracorporeal Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) strategy for treatment of refractory out hospital cardiac arrest: An observational study and propensity analysis. Resuscitation. 2017; 117:109–17.

      32 32 Ostadal P, Rokyta R, Kruger A, et al. Extra corporeal membrane oxygenation in the therapy of cardiogenic shock (ECMO‐CS): rationale and design of the multicenter randomized trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017; 19 Suppl 2:124–7.

      33 33 Authors/Task Force m, Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(37):2541–619.

      34 34 Horwitz D, Fox Sm D, Goldberg LI. Effects of Dopamine in man. Circulation Research. 1962; 10:237–43.

      35 35 Dasta JF, Kirby MG. Pharmacology and therapeutic use of low‐dose dopamine. Pharmacotherapy. 1986; 6(6):304–10.

      36 36 De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(9):779–89.

      37 37 Baim DS, McDowell AV, Cherniles J, et al. Evaluation of a new bipyridine inotropic agent‐‐milrinone‐‐in patients with severe congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1983; 309(13):748–56.

      38 38 Yokoshiki H, Katsube Y, Sunagawa M, Sperelakis N. Levosimendan, a novel Ca2+ sensitizer, activates the glibenclamide‐sensitive K+ channel in rat arterial myocytes. European Journal of Pharmacology. 1997; 333(2–3):249–59.

      39 39 Pollesello P, Ovaska M, Kaivola J, et al. Binding of a new Ca2+ sensitizer, levosimendan, to recombinant human cardiac troponin C. A molecular modelling, fluorescence probe, and proton nuclear magnetic resonance study. J Biol Chem. 1994; 269(46):28584–90.

      40 40 O'Neill W, Basir M, Dixon S, et al. Feasibility of Early Mechanical Support During Mechanical Reperfusion of Acute Myocardial Infarct Cardiogenic Shock. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(6):624–5.

      41 41 Saltzman AJ, Paz YE, Rene AG, et al. Comparison of surgical pericardial drainage with percutaneous catheter drainage for pericardial effusion. J Invasive Cardiol. 2012; 24(11):590–3.

SECTION IV PCI in Different Lesion Types