Percutaneous assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump for cardiogenic shock: Evidence under construction vs. expert opinion: Reply

2010-02-01

European Heart Journal , Volume 31 - Issue 4 p. 502- 503

Additional Metadata
Keywords	ST segment elevation, analytical error, aorta balloon, cardiogenic shock, cardiovascular agent, clinical practice, data analysis, heart assist device, heart infarction, human, intermethod comparison, letter, percutaneous coronary intervention, percutaneous left ventricular assist device, practice guideline, priority journal, safety, survival, therapy effect
Persistent URL	doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp523, hdl.handle.net/1765/19296
Journal	European Heart Journal
Organisation	Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam
Citation APA Style AAA Style APA Style Cell Style Chicago Style Harvard Style IEEE Style MLA Style Nature Style Vancouver Style American-Institute-of-Physics Style Council-of-Science-Editors Style BibTex Format Endnote Format RIS Format CSL Format DOIs only Format	Cheng, J. M., & den Uil, C. (2010). Percutaneous assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump for cardiogenic shock: Evidence under construction vs. expert opinion: Reply. European Heart Journal, 31(4), 502–503. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehp523

Publication