ライフサイエンスコーパス: elective procedure

1 s for non-cardiac chest pain, sepsis, and an elective procedure.

2 e significantly lower in idiopathic VT or in elective procedures.

3 children after achievement of anesthesia for elective procedures.

4 ng interruption of vitamin K antagonists for elective procedures.

5 issions with no difference in IHM seen after elective procedures.

6 elevated clinical risks, or delay of costly elective procedures.

7 with dissections, with malperfusion and for elective procedures.

8 % but was 3-fold higher for nonelective than elective procedures.

9 y patient-surgeon gender concordance for non-elective procedures.

10 ective revascularization, whereas others had elective procedures.

11 2%, P < .001), and less likely to undergo an elective procedure (39.3% vs 48.6%, P = .002) compared w

12 edian age 36 years), and 5,072 (74.0%) first elective procedures (60.0% men; median age 52 years).

13 azard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.34-1.37) and an elective procedure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.83; 95% CI,

14 ale patients (0.3 (0.2 to 0.5); P<0.001) for elective procedures, although the difference was small a

15 Major complications occurred in 12.5% of the elective procedures and in 38.3% of emergency procedures

16 each group, 56.1% of patients underwent non-elective procedures, and 28% were >or=80 years old.

17 ization (n=152) of the non-IRA lesions in an elective procedure before hospital discharge.

18 In-hospital mortality was 1.7% for elective procedures but significantly higher for nonelec

19 The risk is lower for elective procedures, but a substantial proportion will h

20 time span or sequence for these 2 generally elective procedures, but no such guidelines currently ex

21 Data were collected in 12 elective procedures by an expert/expert (N = 6) and an e

22 The authors demonstrate that most of the elective procedures can be safely carried out without an

23 vel changes (incident command activation and elective procedure cancellation) occurred at nearly all

24 Compelling evidence from studies on elective procedures demonstrates that chewing gum can le

25 ng trauma surgery is higher than during most elective procedures due to the fact that administration

26 Adults undergoing 25 common elective procedures from 2013 to 2015 were identified fr

27 We evaluated the development of sepsis after elective procedures in a nationally representative patie

28 ateness rate for PCIs and the use of PCI for elective procedures in New York has decreased substantia

29 9 pandemic led to widespread postponement of elective procedures-including transplant, oncologic, and

30 Among nonacute cases, elective procedures increased in ME states [3.9% (0.1%-7

31 hylaxis against infection prior to a planned elective procedure is, with rare exception, routinely re

32 t least 1 low-volume hospital performing the elective procedure of interest.

33 ractitioner faces a dilemma in performing an elective procedure on a patient with a bleeding risk.

34 re more likely to occur at TH than NTH after elective procedures (OR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.17, P < 0.

35 institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communicati

36 midnight on the outcomes of their scheduled elective procedures performed during the day.

37 tive surgery (LRS) is one of the most common elective procedures performed in the USA today.

38 3; P = .62) for acute coronary syndromes and elective procedures requiring inpatient hospitalization.

39 sized a detailed process most applicable for elective procedures scheduled well in advance.

40 Strong predictors of mortality included age, elective procedure status, renal failure, and malnutriti

41 patient demographics, comorbid disease, and elective procedure status.

42 When evaluating only elective procedures, the differences between the lowest

43 d preprocedural fasting guidelines before an elective procedure under anesthesia.

44 oint difference implies that mortality after elective procedures was 50% higher in Black men compared

45 w laboratory was built, and its capacity for elective procedures was either 1) needed or 2) redundant

46 nge, 6.2% to 16.9%]) and persisted when only elective procedures were assessed (n = 88 hospitals) (me

47 or inpatient stays for select conditions and elective procedures were derived from the Healthcare Cos

48 Elective procedures were grouped into subacromial decomp

49 nd 2006 and patients developing sepsis after elective procedures were identified using the patient sa

50 py may be efficacious in patients undergoing elective procedures where major hemorrhage is likely or

51 tier-based system for safe reintroduction of elective procedures while minimizing transmission to pat

52 om 6,759 admissions, those admitted after an elective procedure with length of stay < or = 1 day, tho

53 tudies suggest that children who present for elective procedures with an upper respiratory tract infe