ライフサイエンスコーパス: bare metal stent

1 (4016 with drug-eluting stents and 3201 with bare-metal stents).

2 d comparable to that in patients receiving a bare metal stent.

3 g stent and 50% for patients who preferred a bare metal stent.

4 osition) in the FP-PES compared with PES and bare metal stent.

5 tent thrombosis rates were 2.0% DCS and 2.2% bare metal stent.

6 year occurred in 7.2% DCS patients and 7.2% bare metal stent.

7 nts with diabetes mellitus (DM) treated with bare-metal stent.

8 apy for the treatment of restenosis within a bare-metal stent.

9 lymer, has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent.

10 ry was delayed in patients with DESs but not bare metal stents.

11 utcomes, and relative outcomes of DES versus bare metal stents.

12 panics, who had similar outcomes with DES or bare metal stents.

13 n patients with both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents.

14 rug-eluting stents and 861 who received only bare metal stents.

15 ly reduced by RSG in SESs but not in PESs or bare metal stents.

16 rosclerosis was a common dominant finding in bare metal stents.

17 epared on both MP35N metal alloy coupons and bare metal stents.

18 complication of both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents.

19 e put into context with the IVUS findings in bare metal stents.

20 Guard was consistent with that expected from bare metal stents.

21 metallic biolimus-eluting stents and control bare metal stents.

22 eluting compared with everolimus-eluting and bare metal stents.

23 nt compared with both everolimus-eluting and bare metal stents.

24 e commonly found in drug-eluting stents than bare-metal stents.

25 l myocardial infarction in DES compared with bare-metal stents.

26 ]; P<0.001) were higher in DES compared with bare-metal stents.

27 42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.19; P = .10) treated with bare-metal stents.

28 Drug Administration-approved drug-eluting or bare-metal stents.

29 eluting stents compared with those receiving bare-metal stents.

30 ed in drug-eluting stents in comparison with bare-metal stents.

31 ath or ST-elevation myocardial infarction to bare-metal stents.

32 drug-eluting stents, and 6461 received only bare-metal stents.

33 evascularization at 1 year, as compared with bare-metal stents.

34 n procedures as compared with treatment with bare-metal stents.

35 d ability to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents.

36 months after stent implantation, similar to bare-metal stents.

37 atelet therapy longer than is necessary with bare-metal stents.

38 oups with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents.

39 arget vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents.

40 itaxel-eluting stents, and 2267 treated with bare-metal stents.

41 ents and paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents.

42 f either contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents.

43 atients without DM or in any group receiving bare-metal stents.

44 HR 0.82, p=0.019), and in patients with only bare-metal stents (10.0 vs 12.2%, HR 0.80, p=0.003).

45 wer with paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents (10.0% vs. 22.9%; hazard ratio, 0.44;

46 expanding covered stent grafts compared with bare-metal stents (10.6% versus 3.4%; P=0.02).

47 (6178 coronary artery bypass grafting, 5011 bare metal stents, 11 844 DES) from 2004 to 2009.

48 ared with PES (10.95 mm(2) [9.64-12.46]) and bare metal stent (13.83 mm(2) [11.53-17.03]; P<0.001).

49 for the competing risk of death was 18% with bare metal stents, 19% with DES, and 6% with coronary ar

50 n old balloon angioplasty (341% increase) to bare metal stent (218% increase) to paclitaxel-eluting s

51 Compared with 749 patients who received a bare-metal stent, 2257 patients who received a paclitaxe

52 rachytherapy, -23.4% (-36.2 to -10.8) versus bare metal stents, -24.2% (-32.2 to -16.4) versus balloo

53 of AF were more likely to be treated with a bare-metal stent (27% vs. 18%).

54 1 LIMA anastomotic stenosis (3.7%), 3 after bare metal stent (30%), and 4 after drug-eluting stent p

55 treated with drug-eluting stents, 1,687 with bare-metal stents), 30.7% presented with MI.

56 ant difference in ST between drug-coated and bare-metal stents (4.4% versus 3.4%; P=0.55), but the ra

57 enosis (62%), was more prevalent in DES than bare-metal stents (68% versus 36%; P=0.02), and demonstr

58 compared with PES (54.16% [42.60-61.97]) and bare metal stent (74.52% [47.23-100.00]; P<0.001).

59 tents (2257 patients) or otherwise identical bare-metal stents (749 patients).

60 -matched groups, mortality was similar after bare-metal stenting (9.8%) and paclitaxel-eluting stenti

61 al infarction rates compared with the use of bare metal stents among all race/ethnicity groups except

62 were lower for drug-eluting stents than for bare-metal stents among all patients with myocardial inf

63 enoses, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent resteno

64 s revealed binary restenosis rates of 27% in bare metal stents and 0% in drug-eluting stents, with me

65 atients receiving drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents and bivalirudin alone versus heparin p

66 osis (ST) have included mostly patients with bare metal stents and early-generation drug-eluting sten

67 METHODS AND Animals receiving SESs, PESs, or bare metal stents and either RSG (3 mg/kg per day) or pl

68 e similar after excluding patients receiving bare metal stents and using an alternative MACE definiti

69 went percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stenting and met our study criteria.

70 l use occurred in 54.7% of all patients with bare-metal stents and 48.7% of patients with drug-elutin

71 o receive either sirolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and five double-blind trials in which

72 ys were assessed in rabbits receiving ZES or bare-metal stents and Mf or placebo by scanning electron

73 hey were treated with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and whether use was standard or off-la

74 atment for CoA, including angioplasty alone, bare metal stenting, and primary covered stent therapy.

75 m outcomes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents, and most are relatively small randomi

76 ity-stratified analysis compared with the LF bare metal stent arm patients as controls.

77 eous revascularization with drug-eluting and bare metal stents associates with a high risk of in-sten

78 d quercetin (Q)-eluting stent with that of a bare metal stent (BMS) on neointimal hyperplasia and re-

79 outflow tract obstruction is possible with a bare metal stent (BMS), although this treatment causes p

80 drug with superior performance to a clinical bare metal stent (BMS).

81 ith artery wall healing in comparison with a bare metal stent (BMS).

82 transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and bail-out bare metal stenting (BMS) is hampered by restenosis.

83 , 16.3] to 7.7 [5.4, 9.9], P<0.0001), behind bare metal stents (BMS) (18.5 [13.2, 23.8] to 12.0 [6.7,

84 (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) has not been studied in the kidn

85 y of different drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elev

86 luting stents (PES) and otherwise equivalent bare metal stents (BMS) in ST-segment elevation myocardi

87 Drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents (BMS) may increase late stent thrombos

88 ct of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) on distal vessels in the serial

89 o estimate the relative impact of DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) on safety and efficacy end point

90 uting stent resolute), against each other or bare metal stents (BMS), and enrolling >/= 50 patients w

91 Compared with bare metal stents (BMS), first-generation drug-eluting s

92 nary drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS), the relative risk of stent thro

93 g-eluting stents (DES) and for 6 weeks after bare metal stents (BMS).

94 arget vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents (BMS).

95 e scaffolds were assessed in comparison with bare metal stents (BMS).

96 S paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or EXPRESS bare metal stents (BMS).

97 Four of the RCTs used bare metal stents (BMS; ERACI II, ARTS, SoS, MASS II) an

98 ncoated balloon angioplasty for treatment of bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) rest

99 t therapy is safer and more effective than a bare-metal stent (BMS) for patients with high risk of bl

100 paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and a similar bare-metal stent (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) les

101 cluding diabetic patients, especially when a bare-metal stent (BMS) is used.

102 ansluminal angioplasty (PTA) and provisional bare-metal stent (BMS) placement.

103 Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus bare-metal stent (BMS) randomized trials.

104 treated with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) plus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus BMS versus drug-eluting st

105 ive randomized comparisons of the SES to the bare-metal stent (BMS), and two were prospective non-ran

106 ouble-blind, randomized trials of PES versus bare-metal stents (BMS) (n = 3,513).

107 ith improved clinical outcomes compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) among a nationally representativ

108 tiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) among patients >/=85 years of ag

109 erm efficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less

110 long-term clinical outcomes differed between bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) by

111 Human coronary bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) fr

112 sponses at bifurcation after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

113 s with VLST and compare the findings between bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

114 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stents (BMS) and first-generation and second-

115 on drug-eluting stents (n-DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and old-generation drug-eluting

116 ion with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) and to formally evaluate the inc

117 e-polymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by means of a network meta-analy

118 DES) platforms, previous generation DES, and bare-metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary interv

119 tcomes between drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) for STEMI.

120 The introduction of bare-metal stents (BMS) has represented a major advancem

121 differences in outcome after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS) have been described, there are n

122 ompared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with

123 eluting stents has prompted increased use of bare-metal stents (BMS) in current practice.

124 ety of drug-eluting stents (DES) relative to bare-metal stents (BMS) in DM is uncertain.

125 t their long-term safety relative to that of bare-metal stents (BMS) in general use remains uncertain

126 nts has equal risks but higher efficacy than bare-metal stents (BMS) in long femoropopliteal artery d

127 er drug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare-metal stents (BMS) in octogenarian patients with an

128 y of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in older patients with chronic k

129 vessel revascularization in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with chronic kidney

130 tiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in SVG-PCI are unclear.

131 imus-eluting stents (SES) in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) in treatment of focal infrapopli

132 rial comparing DEB with EES in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

133 olimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

134 of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear.

135 ous coronary intervention (PCI) using either bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES).

136 th a unique drug fast-release profile versus bare-metal stents (BMS) under similar durations of dual-

137 ortality among drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) while adjusting for many confoun

138 luminal balloon coronary angioplasty (PTCA), bare-metal stents (BMS), and drug-eluting stents (DES) s

139 d improved efficacy and safety compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and international guidelines re

140 duce repeat revascularizations compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), but their effects on death and

141 d for repeat revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), data suggest the window of thro

142 ed with higher rate of late ST compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), especially in patients with ST-

143 ry intervention to SVG in patients receiving bare-metal stents (BMS), first-generation DES, and newer

144 r 1 and between 1 and 5 years after PCI with bare-metal stents (BMS), first-generation drug-eluting s

145 slates into superior outcomes, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), for the full spectrum of patien

146 data on the restenosis benefit of DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the incremental risk of stent t

147 of ST with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the timing of the event, clinic

148 stents (DES) reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), virtually all of these studies

149 ion to paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or to bare-metal stents (BMS).

150 outcomes (at 9 and 12 months) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS).

151 uals receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS).

152 label") with a comparable group treated with bare-metal stents (BMS).

153 outcomes (at 9 and 12 months) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS).

154 uting stents (DP-DES) and as safe >1 year as bare-metal stents (BMS).

155 erent types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in t

156 and neointimal proliferation of a therapy of bare metal stents (BMSs) postdilated with the paclitaxel

157 ng biolimus from a biodegradable polymer and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in the COMFORTABLE trial (Compa

158 ive safety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) with respect to stent thrombosi

159 dom from myocardial infarction compared with bare metal stents, but increase the risk of stent thromb

160 uting stents reduce restenosis compared with bare metal stents, but there is growing concern that dru

161 ificantly different in patients treated with bare metal stents compared with drug-eluting stents (1.4

162 ent-graft implantation and/or placement of a bare metal stent, complications, and follow-up images we

163 g stents reduce restenosis rates relative to bare-metal stents, concerns have been raised that drug-e

164 used to characterize NA in 65 (51 DES and 14 bare-metal stents) consecutive symptomatic patients with

165 (n=12) and PES (n=12) was compared against a bare metal stent control (n=12; Innova, Boston Scientifi

166 The MGuard, a bare metal stent covered with a polymer mesh, was design

167 abetes mellitus, stent type (drug-eluting or bare metal stent), CYP2C19 genetic status, loading dose

168 ed a drug-eluting stent and 38.5% received a bare-metal stent (drug-eluting stent era cohort).

169 Compared with bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents further delay art

170 amined the effects of RSG on SESs, PESs, and bare metal stents endothelialization.

171 when only bare-metal stents were available (bare-metal stent era cohort) and 28,086 similar patients

172 ty era), group 2 (early stent era), group 3 (bare-metal stent era), and group 4 (drug-eluting stent e

173 Relative to the bare-metal stent era, patients treated in the drug-eluti

174 Studies from the balloon angioplasty and bare metal stent eras have demonstrated that coronary ar

175 For bare metal stent, first-generation DES and second-genera

176 us coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatel

177 rovides better clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stenting for ULMCA disease, there is a paucit

178 een shown to be cost-effective compared with bare-metal stents for select clinical trial patients, wh

179 care system receiving either drug-eluting or bare metal stents from 2002 to 2006.

180 % confidence interval 0.22 to 0.95]) and the bare-metal stent group (0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.

181 n the Taxus group and 0.76% +/- 0.23% in the bare-metal stent group at 3 years (hazard ratio 1.51 [95

182 the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.20) and 1.3% in the paclitax

183 the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.20; 95% confidence interval

184 he paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.8% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.24; 95% CI, -0.3 to 1.4).

185 he paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.9% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.30).

186 he paclitaxel-stent group versus 1.4% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.52; 95% CI, -0.7 to 1.4).

187 the sirolimus-stent group versus 1.7% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.70; 95% CI, -1.5 to 1.0) and

188 ent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage

189 tent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage

190 the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.4% in the bare-metal-stent group and 0.9% in the paclitaxel-stent

191 he paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group.

192 paclitaxel-stent group, as compared with the bare-metal-stent groups.

193 drug-eluting stent showed similar safety as bare-metal stent >12 months and between 6 and 12 months

194 itaxel-eluting stents and those treated with bare-metal stents had similar 12-month rates of death (3

195 tients receiving drug-eluting stents (versus bare-metal stents) had a lower 30-month mortality (IPW H

196 stents, as compared with those who received bare-metal stents, had significantly lower 12-month rate

197 pending upon whether a drug-eluting stent or bare-metal stent has been implanted.

198 rials of approved drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents have shown additional cases of late st

199 -stent restenosis in the cohort treated with bare-metal stents (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.03 [95% confide

200 ble polymer and 49 patients (8.7%) receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30

201 ting stents and 19.8% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0

202 ting stents and 17.1% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence in

203 dence interval [CI], 0.61, 0.82; P<0.01) and bare metal stents (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76, 0.96; P=0.01)

204 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64, 0.84) compared with bare metal stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79, 0.98; interac

205 ould be postponed for at least 4 weeks after bare metal stent implantation and 6-12 months after drug

206 xel-eluting stent implantation compared with bare metal stent implantation was modified by angiograph

207 surgery be delayed until 30 to 45 days after bare-metal stent implantation and 1 year after drug-elut

208 for elective surgery is 46 to 180 days after bare-metal stent implantation or >180 days after drug-el

209 r drug-eluting stent placement compared with bare-metal stent implantation remain unsettled, with con

210 llowed by provisional self-expanding nitinol bare-metal stent implantation with a strategy of systema

211 ly approved therapy for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation, drug-eluting stents are n

212 In comparison with bare-metal stent implanted >12 months before surgery, ol

213 imus A9 Drug Coated Stent Versus the Gazelle Bare Metal Stent in Patients With High Risk of Bleeding

214 Clinical presentation of bare metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients u

215 s Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infar

216 lled in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty; N

217 relative risks of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in specific high-risk groups require f

218 arget vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents in the extremely elderly.

219 g drug-eluting stent performance relative to bare metal stents in the setting of acute myocardial inf

220 ed the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleedin

221 use of drug-eluting stents as compared with bare-metal stents in all groups.

222 h balloon angioplasty in six trials and with bare-metal stents in four trials.

223 ents with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents in randomized clinical trials, althoug

224 ving drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents in the composite outcome of death from

225 ing stents may have clinical advantages over bare-metal stents in the extremely proliferative environ

226 acy of drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, in patients with ST-segment elevation

227 Restenosis within bare-metal stents is often treated with repeat percutane

228 level data to compare the efficacy of EES in bare-metal stent ISR and DES-ISR.

229 Patients with bare-metal stent ISR declined from 2.6% in 2009 Q3 to 0.

230 were reported between drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR groups in terms of device-oriented

231 treatment of complex drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR lesions might be associated with ac

232 Results of 94 patients treated with EES for bare-metal stent ISR were compared with those of 155 pat

233 more challenging than that of patients with bare-metal stent ISR.

234 in patients with DES-ISR than in those with bare-metal stent ISR.

235 sis (n=55) or in-stent restenosis (ISR) of a bare metal stent (n=34).

236 s (1077 ISR lesions) distributed as follows: bare metal stent (n=388), first-generation DES (n=425),

237 the biolimus-eluting stent (n = 575) or the bare-metal stent (n = 582).

238 reatment with paclitaxel DEB and provisional bare-metal stenting (n = 90) or PES implantation (n = 92

239 litaxel-coated balloon angioplasty (N=3543), bare-metal stenting (N= 2045) versus paclitaxel-eluting

240 therosclerosis (n =10) or implanted coronary bare-metal stents (n = 10, 3.5-mm diameter, day 7 post-i

241 drug-eluting stents (n=46) and patients with bare-metal stents (n=24).

242 ing the benefits of drug-eluting stents over bare-metal stents observed in randomized clinical trials

243 rary drug-eluting stents versus contemporary bare-metal stents on rates of death, myocardial infarcti

244 2.31%, HR 0.36, p<0.0001), and in those with bare-metal stents only (1.27 vs 2.41%, HR 0.52, p=0.0009

245 eiving RSG compared to RSG animals receiving bare metal stent or PESs.

246 oons, in patients presenting with ISR within bare-metal stents or DES.

247 s (such as conventional balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stents, or drug-eluting stents) for the treat

248 were 4.4% with both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents (P=0.98) and 4.3% versus 4.6% in patie

249 -eluting stents versus none in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.025) and nine episodes in patient

250 l-eluting stents versus two in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.028).

251 changes were not significant (DES, P=0.086; bare-metal stent, P=0.296).

252 Stent) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everoli

253 tment within 6 months compared with 64.2% of bare metal stent patients.

254 eriod, there was no change in the percent of bare-metal stent patients reporting clopidogrel use at 6

255 As compared with patients with bare-metal stents, patients with drug-eluting stents had

256 404 days (P < .001) and decreased following bare metal stent placement from 402 to 309 days (P < .00

257 In contrast, MACE rates with bare metal stent placement increased from 4.3% in 2005 t

258 0% to 13% after angioplasty, 0% to 5% after bare metal stent placement, and <1% after covered stent

259 o everolimus-eluting, sirolimus-eluting, and bare metal stent placement.

260 wed DES placement, and 5608 (33.7%) followed bare metal stent placement.

261 se mortality included balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stent placement compared with drug-eluting st

262 Between 1992 and 2010, 27 patients underwent bare-metal stent placement in the ventricular septum or

263 raphy, fractional flow reserve measurements, bare-metal stents, postprocedural medications, and radia

264 safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with

265 Treatment of bare metal stent restenosis using PEB led to significant

266 mus-eluting stents (EES) in the treatment of bare metal stent restenosis.

267 ated with favorable results for treatment of bare-metal stent restenosis.

268 ns of balloon angioplasty or with the use of bare-metal stents, results in greater relief from angina

269 ty rates were 14.5% for DES versus 23.0% for bare metal stents (risk difference, -8.5%; P<0.001), an

270 Only bare metal stents showed complete re-endothelialization

271 paclitaxel-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, significantly reduced angiographic ev

272 With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be

273 limitations of plain balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents, some limitations apply, most notably

274 1 to receive a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a bare metal stent (stent randomisation; stratified by pha

275 e Initial Double-Blind Drug-Eluting Stent vs Bare-Metal Stent Study, NCT00233805; The Study of the BX

276 Compared with a bare-metal stent, the use of biolimus-eluting stents wit

277 effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents, the evidence seems to suggest that th

278 DES use decreased by 41% and bare metal stent use increased by 85% from 2006 to 2007.

279 Compared with bare metal stent use, DES use was generally associated w

280 Relative to bare metal stent use, drug-eluting stent use was associa

281 usted differences in outcomes for DES versus bare metal stents using a 2-stage least squares instrume

282 A bare metal stent was implanted in the dorsal abdominal a

283 erval was 45 to 180 days, the event rate for bare-metal stents was 2.6%, approaching that of intermed

284 ceived a balanced mixture of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents was not significantly more effective t

285 using human coronary artery sections with a bare metal stent, we demonstrate the expression of Fn-ED

286 receive either paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents; we then analyzed the major clinical e

287 When bare metal stents were deployed in malapposed or overlap

288 ears receiving either drug-eluting stents or bare metal stents were included.

289 IIa inhibitor and use of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents were not significant predictors of rei

290 om October 2002 through March 2003 when only bare-metal stents were available (bare-metal stent era c

291 revascularization) with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents were compared using inverse probabilit

292 ving drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents were determined from vital-statistics

293 covered stents, and 11.2% balloon expandable bare metal stents) were placed in 692 renal arteries, 15

294 Ten patients (37%) were treated with bare metal stents, whereas 17 patients (63%) were treate

295 Many people will do well with a bare-metal stent, whereas for individuals with a high li

296 g-eluting stents as compared with those with bare-metal stents, whereas the risk of repeat revascular

297 entional cardiologists have quickly replaced bare metal stents with intravascular drug-eluting stents

298 ee umirolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and

299 e patients randomized to drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents with successful stenting documented by

300 Whether the use of bare-metal stents would yield different results is unkno