Improved Outcomes Associated with the use of Shock Protocols: Updates from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions2019Vol. 93(7), pp. 1173–1183
Citations Over TimeTop 1% of 2019 papers
Mir B. Basir, Navin K. Kapur, Kirit Patel, Murad A. Salam, Theodore Schreiber, Amir Kaki, Ivan Hanson, Steve Almany, Steve Timmis, Simon Dixon, Brian Kolski, Josh Todd, Shaun Senter, Steven P. Marso, David Lasorda, Charles Wilkins, Thomas LaLonde, Antonious Attallah, Timothy J. Larkin, Allison Dupont, J. Jeffrey Marshall, Nainesh Patel, Tjuan Overly, Michael Green, Behnam Tehrani, Alexander G. Truesdell, Rahul Sharma, Yasir Akhtar, Thomas McRae, Brian O’Neill, John Finley, Ayaz Rahman, Malcolm Foster, Raza Askari, Andrew M. Goldsweig, Scott Martin, Aditya Bharadwaj, Matheen Khuddus, Christopher Caputo, Denes Korpas, Ian Cawich, David McAllister, Nimrod Blank, M. Chadi Alraies, Ruth Fisher, Akshay Khandelwal, Khaldoon Alaswad, Alejandro Lemor, Tyrell Johnson, Michael Hacala, William W. O’Neill, on behalf of the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators
Abstract
In contemporary practice, use of a shock protocol emphasizing best practices is associated with improved outcomes.
Related Papers
- → Adoption of Radial Access and Comparison of Outcomes to Femoral Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention(2013)463 cited
- → Comparison of three-year outcomes in blacks versus whites with coronary heart disease following percutaneous coronary intervention(2004)9 cited
- → A tale of two registries: Trends and outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in two transatlantic populations(2023)
- → Abstract 161: National Trends in Use of Radial Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in China: 2001-2011(2015)