ライフサイエンスコーパス: drug-eluting stent

1 tal stent implantation and 6-12 months after drug-eluting stent.

2 eated with ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut drug-eluting stent.

3 very early after implantation of Ultimaster drug-eluting stent.

4 in-strut second-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stent.

5 r registry of patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stents.

6 ous coronary intervention with Resolute Onyx drug-eluting stents.

7 1 year, both in patients with bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

8 ients treated with early- and new-generation drug-eluting stents.

9 larization were lower in the group receiving drug-eluting stents.

10 consistent among early- and newer-generation drug-eluting stents.

11 of conventional, non-absorbable metal-based drug-eluting stents.

12 lantation was not limited to only those with drug-eluting stents.

13 was dramatically reduced with the advent of drug-eluting stents.

14 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.

15 among high-risk patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents.

16 ble scaffolds compared with current metallic drug-eluting stents.

17 shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents.

18 did not evaluate PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents.

19 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.

20 ary artery disease treated with contemporary drug-eluting stents.

21 hs thienopyridine plus aspirin therapy after drug-eluting stents.

22 unction after implantation of bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

23 ve patients treated with unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents.

24 s in stent technology in both bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

25 lays an essential role in the performance of drug-eluting stents.

26 tically circumvent the side effects of metal drug-eluting stents.

27 G and PCI can be reduced by newer generation drug-eluting stents.

28 th status and quality of life than PCI using drug-eluting stents.

29 rcutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents.

30 outcomes in comparison with early generation drug-eluting stents.

31 vel elution technology in the current era of drug-eluting stents.

32 r registry of patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stents.

33 ication were upregulated in the neointima of drug-eluting stents.

34 as not been systematically investigated with drug-eluting stents.

35 er than 1-year DAPT versus 1-year DAPT after drug-eluting stenting.

36 ,648 randomized patients (9,961 treated with drug-eluting stents, 1,687 with bare-metal stents), 30.7

37 were performed in 2931 lesions treated with drug-eluting stents (355 sirolimus, 846 paclitaxel, 1387

38 In the group receiving drug-eluting stents, 96% of the patients received either

39 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) according to sex and the presence/a

40 mated to describe the process used to select drug-eluting stents across the study population.

41 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) registry, which included

42 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) study was a prospective,

43 ssessment of Dual Anti-platelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) was a multicenter, prosp

44 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) was a prospective, multi

45 for release of antiproliferative drugs from drug-eluting stents aim to improve vascular healing.

46 eceived was 98% for patients who preferred a drug-eluting stent and 50% for patients who preferred a

47 ignificant differences were reported between drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR groups in te

48 VS implantation for the treatment of complex drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR lesions migh

49 n drug-eluting stent to the first-generation drug-eluting stent and the noninferiority to the thin-st

50 ry outcome were 16.6% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 17.1% in the group receiving bar

51 6212 patients, 84.1% received new-generation drug-eluting stents and 19.5% received prasugrel.

52 larization were 16.5% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 19.8% in the group receiving bar

53 The use of new-generation drug-eluting stents and arterial conduits greatly improv

54 Little is known about reinfarction after drug-eluting stents and bivalirudin anticoagulation.

55 PCI using drug-eluting stents and CABG are equally safe methods of

56 Although drug-eluting stents and devices for plaque modification

57 Novel devices such as drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons have improv

58 he backbone of endovascular techniques, with drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons offering lo

59 New well-tested innovations include drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons.

60 Using data from 4,190 patients treated with drug-eluting stents and enrolled in the PARIS (Patterns

61 e with early ADPri cessation, 53.9% received drug-eluting stents and had a median duration of 301 tre

62 differ from biological reactions to metallic drug-eluting stents and how these responses translate in

63 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents and in the response to clopidogrel t

64 ed of patients enrolled in the Evaluation of Drug-Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events (EVENT) registry

65 The clinical effect of newer-generation drug-eluting stents and operative factors in complex cor

66 oing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents and platelet function testing using

67 nificant differences between those receiving drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stent

68 LMCA stenosis, PCI vs CABG, exclusive use of drug-eluting stents, and clinical follow-up of 3 or more

69 ntimal proliferation in a similar fashion to drug-eluting stents, and complete bioresorption is assoc

70 ent struts were a common dominant finding in drug-eluting stents, and neoatherosclerosis was a common

71 ry intervention, history of diabetes, use of drug-eluting stents, and use of dual antiplatelet therap

72 Drug-eluting stents are accepted as mainstream endovascu

73 Contemporary metallic drug-eluting stents are associated with very good 1-year

74 Background Polymer-free drug-eluting stents are based on different technologies

75 It is unknown whether different polymer-free drug-eluting stents are comparable in terms of safety an

76 Data on long-term outcomes of new-generation drug-eluting stents are limited, and predictors of repea

77 for patients in the drug-coated balloon and drug-eluting stent arms of randomized clinical trials fo

78 1 year support treatment with Resolute Onyx drug-eluting stents as part of an individualized strateg

79 t therapy beyond 1 year after placement of a drug-eluting stent, as compared with aspirin therapy alo

80 oronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents, as compared with coronary-artery by

81 own non-inferiority between BVS and metallic drug-eluting stents at 1 year in composite safety and ef

82 or the safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents at long-term follow-up, and specific

83 Substantial variability in the use of drug-eluting stents at the clinical center level was obs

84 Paclitaxel drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents became commercially available for th

85 Compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (B

86 Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) were developed to be as eff

87 for at least 6 months after treatment with a drug-eluting stent by percutaneous coronary intervention

88 nal medical therapy is focused on the use of drug eluting stents, coronary-artery bypass graft surger

89 espite the introduction of antiproliferative drug-eluting stents, coronary heart disease remains the

90 Most drug-eluting stents currently in use are coated with a p

91 Drug-eluting stents delivering antiproliferative agents

92 -risk surgery (DeltaRD: 3.7%; p = 0.01), and drug-eluting stent (DES) (DeltaRD: 1.3%; p = 0.01).

93 ous coronary intervention using contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with coronary artery b

94 Whether these results apply in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era is unknown.

95 s after either Absorb BVS or Xience metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation (Abbott Vascular,

96 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation are unclear.

97 ciated with improved clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in an unrestricted

98 t therapy (DAPT) following second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is still debated.

99 on of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is unclear, and it

100 iving oral anticoagulation (OAC) who undergo drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation require additional

101 Re-endothelialization is delayed after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.

102 Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is mo

103 Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) remai

104 e whether baseline lesion complexity affects drug-eluting stent (DES) outcomes according to diabetic

105 on of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) placement remains controversial

106 The necessity of polymers on drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms is dictated by the ne

107 e limited data on comparison of contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms, previous generation

108 ation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in drug-eluting stent (DES) recipients is 12 months to redu

109 Despite on-going evolution and iteration of drug-eluting stent (DES) technology, the prevalence of i

110 3 and 2009 (n=2690), we identified quarterly drug-eluting stent (DES) use rates as an instrumental va

111 race/ethnicity group, we examined trends in drug-eluting stent (DES) use, 30-month outcomes, and rel

112 ing stents (BES) versus durable-polymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by

113 and efficacy profiles of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); h

114 Randomized trials of drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB)

115 r coronary stent procedures for 1 year after drug-eluting stents (DES) and for 6 weeks after bare met

116 with bare metal stents and early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) and have not systematically ev

117 ison between drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-eluting stents (DES) are available.

118 tent thrombosis (VLST) after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are incompletely understood.

119 e aim of this study was to determine whether drug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare-metal ste

120 sorb; Abbott Vascular) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at 5 institutions.

121 Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stent

122 Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have drastically reduced the i

123 New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated

124 In interventional cardiology, drug-eluting stents (DES) have shown better patency rate

125 th bare metal stents (BMS), first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have significantly reduced the

126 The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients at high risk of bl

127 been resolved about the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with acute STEMI.

128 The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with ST-segment-el

129 ts with coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) in randomized clinical trials

130 Implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) is the dominant treatment stra

131 Drug-eluting stents (DES) might reduce the rate of targe

132 ng percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce repeat revascularizatio

133 DAPT) after implantation of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) remains uncertain.

134 Drug-eluting stents (DES) showed improved efficacy and s

135 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS)

136 However, data for the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS)

137 procedure performed: 956 underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES), and 894 underwent CABG.

138 anical support functions similar to metallic drug-eluting stents (DES), followed by complete bioresor

139 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), improvements driven mainly by

140 ts with DM treated with insulin who received drug-eluting stents (DES), prolonged clopidogrel treatme

141 findings between bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

142 yet to be assessed versus the best-in-class drug-eluting stents (DES).

143 PCI) using either bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES).

144 (PLAD) coronary artery disease in the era of drug-eluting stents (DES).

145 percutaneous coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI)).

146 nary saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions with drug-eluting stents (DES; paclitaxel- or everolimus-elut

147 ) and first-generation and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES1 and DES2, respectively).

148 th bare-metal stents (BMS), first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES1) and second-generation drug-el

149 -eluting stents (DES1) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES2).

150 itus preventing the evaluation of changes in drug-eluting stent design and eluted drugs after clinica

151 The relative safety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs)

152 g balloon (DEB) was compared with everolimus drug-eluting stents (DESs) at 6-month follow-up using op

153 ical trial of 2 often-used, newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) in a broad patient population

154 and outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) remains under-reported.

155 cardiac surgery by 365 days in patients with drug-eluting stents (DESs).

156 on treated with predominantly new-generation drug-eluting stents, diabetic patients were at increased

157 fective as second-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) and as safe >1 year as bare

158 me the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus.

159 In the post drug-eluting stent era, studies of racial disparities CA

160 hanical support similar to those of metallic drug-eluting stents, followed by complete resorption in

161 anical support functions similar to metallic drug-eluting stents, followed by complete resorption wit

162 d included consecutive patients treated with drug-eluting stents for at least 1 CTO (>3 months).

163 In the era of drug-eluting stents for diffuse coronary lesions, IVUS-g

164 to be noninferior to a contemporary metallic drug-eluting stents for overall 1-year patient-oriented

165 l balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stents, or drug-eluting stents) for the treatment of coronary in-st

166 s: HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.74-1.41; P = .89) and drug-eluting stent generation (first generation: HR, 0.9

167 Sensitivity analyses according to drug-eluting stent generation and coronary artery diseas

168 However, even the latest-generation drug-eluting stent has not managed to address all the li

169 The development of coronary drug-eluting stents has included use of new metal alloys

170 luting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large

171 Drug-eluting stents have emerged as potent weapons in th

172 The improvements in newer-generation drug-eluting stents have translated into better safety a

173 tients with very late stent thrombosis after drug eluting stent implantation, suggesting a role of IS

174 tegy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interru

175 rapy (DAPT) continuation beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation as compared with 1-year

176 study of 8582 patients undergoing successful drug-eluting stent implantation at 11 centers in the Uni

177 say after clopidogrel loading and successful drug-eluting stent implantation at 11 sites in the Unite

178 The SECURITY (Second Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Followed by Six- Versus

179 went percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation for an acute coronary sy

180 rocedural MI within 2 years after successful drug-eluting stent implantation is relatively infrequent

181 ough treatment with DAPT beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation reduces myocardial infar

182 CM of coronary arteries after bare-metal and drug-eluting stent implantation, most notably an upregul

183 duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation, we avoid a common pitfa

184 ve, multicenter study of patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation.

185 ascularization during 1-year follow-up after drug-eluting stent implantation.

186 als comparing different DAPT durations after drug-eluting stent implantation.

187 clinical outcomes after successful coronary drug-eluting stent implantation.

188 which further decreased to 7.8+/-7.1% after drug-eluting stent implantation.

189 ") to extend dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation.

190 g outcomes 2 years after successful coronary drug-eluting stent implantation; however, these associat

191 sizing on acute and long-term outcomes after drug-eluting stents implantation in de novo coronary les

192 ts treated with clopidogrel after successful drug-eluting stents implantation, the concomitant admini

193 ts, may optimize long-term outcomes, even in drug-eluting stents implantation.

194 e underlying stent type was a new-generation drug-eluting stent in 50.3%.

195 s compared with Absorb and the Orsiro hybrid drug-eluting stent in a porcine arteriovenous shunt mode

196 The choice of drug-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with dia

197 reatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) have not be

198 , basement membrane proteins were reduced in drug-eluting stents in comparison with bare-metal stents

199 re developed to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary interventio

200 equivalent to those of conventional metallic drug-eluting stents in the early years after implantatio

201 potential advantages compared with metallic drug-eluting stents in the treatment of complex coronary

202 mode of revascularization (CABG vs. PCI with drug-eluting stents) in diabetic patients with ACS and M

203 Percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent is the most common mode of revascular

204 rcutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents is as safe and effective as CABG for

205 nical evaluation of the vascular response of drug-eluting stents is limited especially in the setting

206 The role of drug-eluting stents is not yet established.

207 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is the standard of care for treatmen

208 Among the ISR lesions, the majority were drug-eluting stent ISR (78, 61.6%), de novo ISR (92, 72.

209 2009 Q3 to 0.9% in 2017 Q2 (p < 0.001), and drug-eluting stent ISR rose from 5.4% in 2009 Q3 to 6.3%

210 In drug-eluting stent ISR, balloon angioplasty was inferior

211 l drug-eluting treatments for ISR, including drug-eluting stent ISR.

212 In the era of drug-eluting stents, it is unknown if intravascular ultr

213 In the era of drug-eluting stents, large-scale randomized trials and a

214 80% of patients in the United States receive drug-eluting stents, less than a third report that their

215 n in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients after drug-eluting stents, limited evidence exists to support

216 In addition, the choice of a drug-eluting stent (limus- vs taxol-eluting) in ITDM is

217 of patients in randomized trials, but other drug-eluting stents, mainly the everolimus-eluting stent

218 Randomized trials have suggested that drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative to

219 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative.

220 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (n = 101) and followed for at least

221 onary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (n-DES) compared with bare-metal ste

222 h bare-metal stents (BMS) and old-generation drug-eluting stents (o-DES) enrolled in the SCAAR (Swedi

223 New-generation drug-eluting stents offer the potential for enhanced lat

224 ndividuals aged >/=65 years receiving either drug-eluting stents or bare metal stents were included.

225 with the implantation of either contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents.

226 This study determined drug-eluting stents outcomes in relation to diabetic sta

227 is of the RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Evero

228 Drug-eluting stent, particularly everolimus-eluting sten

229 (25th, 75th percentiles: 137, 353); 33.3% of drug-eluting stent patients stopped treatment within 6 m

230 r to percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (PCI-DES) in reducing the rate of ma

231 or bare-metal stent placement compared with drug-eluting stent placement (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.61-3.9

232 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent placement has not been prospectively

233 l antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after coronary drug-eluting stent placement remains uncertain.

234 bypass surgery and the newest generation of drug-eluting stent platforms offer no definitive benefit

235 estinal bleeding (GIB) in the current era of drug-eluting stents, prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy

236 Drug-eluting stents reduce the incidence of in-stent res

237 Background Drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of restenosis in pat

238 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) registry.

239 ed noninferiority of a novel ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegrada

240 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains controversial.

241 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains uncertain.

242 Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among

243 s with high scores treated with contemporary drug-eluting stents requires further study.

244 Conversely, new-generation drug-eluting stent showed similar safety as bare-metal s

245 Following PCI with contemporary drug-eluting stents, stent implantation in NIRS-defined

246 substantially reduced with newer-generation drug-eluting stent, still remains.

247 TE (Real-World Endeavor Resolute vs Xience V Drug-Eluting Stent Study in Twente) trial is an investig

248 Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents study.

249 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) study was used to determine the inc

250 a new direction in improving next generation drug-eluting stent technology.

251 a side branch; it is more commonly found in drug-eluting stents than bare-metal stents.

252 Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolim

253 Among high-risk patients receiving drug-eluting stents, the antithrombotic potency of ticag

254 ority trial-compared 2 biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents: the thin-strut cobalt-chromium siro

255 Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy with Drug-Eluting Stents], THIN [The Health Improvement Netwo

256 At the same time, drug-eluting stent thrombosis emerged as a major concern

257 atient, for example, by targeting the use of drug-eluting stent to high-risk patients, with the goal

258 aflex seems a safe and effective alternative drug-eluting stent to other stents in clinical practice.

259 trut biodegradable polymer second-generation drug-eluting stent to the first-generation drug-eluting

260 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents to contemporaneous patients within t

261 erm clinical outcomes with a novel ultrathin drug-eluting stent, to date, are limited.

262 risk-benefit ratio of PPIs in patients with drug-eluting stents treated with clopidogrel.

263 Diabetic patients with contraindication to a drug-eluting stent, undergoing PCI with a BMS, were rand

264 Drug-eluting stent use increased during the study period

265 Drug-eluting stent use was higher in the higher SES grou

266 f contemporary data on the second-generation drug-eluting stent use within SVG, and the relative impo

267 ess the vessel-healing pattern of Ultimaster drug-eluting stent using optical frequency domain imagin

268 ccording to definitions of the SYNTAX (TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

269 (TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

270 tes, 3-vessel disease, or high SYNTAX (TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

271 [SYNTAXES]; NCT03417050; SYNTAX Study: TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

272 [SYNTAXES], NCT03417050; SYNTAX Study: TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

273 c analysis of patients enrolled in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenou

274 ble on the long-term effects of contemporary drug-eluting stents versus contemporary bare-metal stent

275 To compare the long-term safety of PCI with drug-eluting stent vs CABG in patients with LMCA stenosi

276 ed >12 months before surgery, old-generation drug-eluting stent was associated with higher risk of ev

277 ergone a coronary stent procedure in which a drug-eluting stent was placed.

278 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) was a large-scale, prospective, mul

279 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) was a prospective, multicenter regi

280 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) was a prospective, multicenter regi

281 tive patients with ULM stenosis treated with drug-eluting stent were included in this analysis.

282 First-generation drug-eluting stents were associated with higher rate of

283 Bare-metal and drug-eluting stents were implanted in pig coronary arter

284 an angiography-guided approach in the era of drug-eluting stents were included.

285 patients, trial patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents were similar with respect to race, s

286 A total of 38 early- and 20 newer-generation drug-eluting stents were suitable for analysis.

287 t in 1310 patients (22%), and new-generation drug-eluting stents were used in 4554 patients (75%).

288 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) were stratified according to whethe

289 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents, whereas extended-term DAPT reduces

290 e a promising non-implantable alternative to drug-eluting stents, whereby drug is delivered to the ar

291 g artery alongside the good patency rates of drug-eluting stents, which outlive saphenous vein grafts

292 gned to overcome the limitations of metallic drug-eluting stents, which permanently cage the vessel w

293 th use of BMS have led to the development of drug-eluting stents, which require prolonged dual antipl

294 ome of the well-known limitations of current drug-eluting stents, while providing a transient scaffol

295 on With OFDI of Strut Coverage of Terumo New Drug Eluting Stent With Biodegradable Polymer at 1, 2, a

296 MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coati

297 arding the comparison between new-generation drug-eluting stents with biodegradable or permanent poly

298 Coronary drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have bee

299 ain whether BVS are as safe and effective as drug-eluting stents within 2 years after implantation an

300 t these devices are as safe and effective as drug-eluting stents within the first year after implanta