The Experts below are selected from a list of 36213 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Shingchiu Wong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
Harvey D White - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
Philip E Aylward - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
Lynn A Sleeper - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
James T Stewart - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
-
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, 2005Co-Authors: Harvey D White, Susan F Assmann, Timothy A Sanborn, Alice K Jacobs, John G Webb, Lynn A Sleeper, Cheukkit Wong, James T Stewart, Philip E Aylward, Shingchiu WongAbstract:Background— The Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial demonstrated the survival advantage of emergency revascularization versus initial medical stabilization in patients developing cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. The relative merits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with shock have not been defined. The objective of this analysis was to compare the effects of PCI and CABG on 30-day and 1-year survival in the SHOCK trial. Methods and Results— Of the 302 trial patients, 128 with predominant left ventricular failure had emergency revascularization. The selection of revascularization procedures was individualized. Eighty-one patients (63.3%) had PCI, and 47 (36.7%) had CABG. The median time from randomization to intervention was 0.9 hours (Interquartile Range [IQR], 0.3 to 2.2 hours) for PCI and 2.7 hours (IQR, 1.3 to 5.5 hours) for CABG. Baseline demographics and hemod...
