ライフサイエンスコーパス: percutaneous coronary intervention

1 with coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention).

2 n myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

3 ion myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

4 dose, on IPA in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

5 h dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following percutaneous coronary intervention.

6 ranging trial in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

7 hen selecting antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention.

8 equiring inter-hospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

9 contemporary group of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.

10 ion myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

11 cute coronary syndrome patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

12 on-only as compared to immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

13 monotherapy appeared to be beneficial after percutaneous coronary intervention.

14 IMR, CFR, and RRR were measured post-primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

15 ls of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

16 ute coronary syndromes, and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

17 n all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

18 l-comers trial of 15 968 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

19 directions for adoption of the technique in percutaneous coronary intervention.

20 erse events during the first month following percutaneous coronary intervention.

21 udy, 185 (32%) patients underwent stent-only percutaneous coronary intervention.

22 ysis in Myocardial Infarction) flow <3 after percutaneous coronary intervention.

23 n strategies toward these individuals during percutaneous coronary intervention.

24 farction (STEMI) patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

25 or equipoise coronary artery bypass grafting-percutaneous coronary intervention.

26 erse cardiovascular events, especially after percutaneous coronary intervention.

27 major bleeding events and bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention.

28 culprit-lesion-only or immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

29 and AKI requiring dialysis within 30 days of percutaneous coronary intervention.

30 eration DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

31 stent size among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

32 dial infarction patients who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

33 outcomes of RA versus femoral access in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention.

34 rapy with P2Y12 inhibitors in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.

35 All study participants underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

36 e during routine cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention.

37 nts in the invasive group initially received percutaneous coronary intervention.

38 efforts, including coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention.

39 produce cost savings in the first year after percutaneous coronary intervention.

40 e treatment strategy from medical therapy to percutaneous coronary intervention.

41 age 61 years, 209 women) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

42 from 44% to 75% among patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.

43 ansitioned to predominantly SDD for elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

44 day discharge (SDD) following uncomplicated percutaneous coronary intervention.

45 reater adoption of intravascular imaging for percutaneous coronary intervention.

46 cute coronary syndrome patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

47 cal options when treating patients following percutaneous coronary intervention.

48 rategy for shortened DAPT duration following percutaneous coronary intervention.

49 g routine cardiac catheterization, including percutaneous coronary interventions.

50 coronary syndromes in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary interventions.

51 lane angiogram data may be useful in guiding percutaneous coronary interventions.

52 s relatively unchanged, encompassing ~10% of percutaneous coronary interventions.

53 n the therapy than control immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (14.1+/-4.1% versus 1

54 y coronary angiography (49.2% versus 54.1%), percutaneous coronary intervention (59.2% versus 64.0%),

55 lts were confirmed among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (72% of population) a

56 round of a P2Y12 inhibitor in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review

57 ion myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, admission LUS added

58 f the primary safety end point of major peri-percutaneous coronary intervention adverse events was si

59 heart valve and underwent CA with or without percutaneous coronary intervention after TAVI.

60 on thrombectomy catheter devices used during percutaneous coronary intervention among 95 925 patients

61 telet reactivity and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions among current smoker

62 were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for cor

63 54.9%), (493 [27.3%] underwent rescue/urgent percutaneous coronary intervention and 1312 [72.7%] had

64 nly used outcome measure in trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery b

65 T-segment elevation MI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention and the interplay bet

66 component of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention and the withholding o

67 A total of 19 348 patients underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention and were included in

68 t teams to make a treatment decision between percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery

69 less likely to receive coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, and mechanical circu

70 itals evaluated, 1440 (79.4%) performed >=10 percutaneous coronary interventions annually.

71 with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are at increased risk

72 Thus, post-TAVI coronary access (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention are expected to incre

73 es when delays in timely delivery of primary percutaneous coronary intervention are expected, a moder

74 leeding and myocardial infarction (MI) after percutaneous coronary intervention are independent risk

75 ion myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited.

76 ed with confirmed STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention at Barts Heart Centre

77 l therapy in high-risk patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, based on one of the

78 leles impair clopidogrel effectiveness after percutaneous coronary intervention, but the clinical imp

79 he risk of restenosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but their use necess

80 nning zones and was performed before primary percutaneous coronary intervention by an operator blinde

81 s a steep increase in mortality when primary percutaneous coronary intervention cannot be delivered i

82 defined as <=120 minutes from arrival at the percutaneous coronary intervention-capable facility.

83 lected in the Diagnostic Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CathPCI) registry of

84 In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, CEC procedures ident

85 cute coronary syndromes and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention changed the treatment

86 on of epicardial vessel patency with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary microvascul

87 Percutaneous coronary intervention did not offer a survi

88 n a sizeable proportion of patients, primary percutaneous coronary intervention does not achieve effe

89 rel Standard Therapy in Subjects Who Require Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) double-blind randomi

90 , stroke, pericardial effusion or tamponade, percutaneous coronary intervention due to iatrogenic cor

91 cess for performing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention due to the reduced ri

92 mong atrial fibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention enrolled in PIONEER A

93 long-term MACE after revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention, even with contempora

94 significantly smaller in vessels with a post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR <=0.85 as compare

95 In 100 vessels with a post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR <=0.85, mean post

96 pective single-center registry in which post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR was assessed in 1

97 ion showing LV ejection fraction <=45% after percutaneous coronary intervention for extensive ST-segm

98 to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left anterior

99 tems designed to perform expeditious primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients presenti

100 monitored biomarker concentrations regarding percutaneous coronary intervention for prognostic purpos

101 alysis was limited only to studies that used percutaneous coronary intervention for revascularization

102 Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevat

103 ly selected high-risk patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevat

104 Among 10 987 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for stable ischemic h

105 equiring inter-hospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention from 12 regions aroun

106 ervention Society including all the elective percutaneous coronary intervention from 2007 to 2014 in

107 ion myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention from 2011 to 2018 wer

108 % of women and 55% of men in the multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention group.

109 nd after TAVI (group 1) and before and after percutaneous coronary intervention (group 2).

110 acute coronary syndrome and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention had less bleeding wit

111 Bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention has important prognos

112 brane oxygenation, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention has resulted in funct

113 an adjunct to coronary angiography to guide percutaneous coronary interventions has accumulated over

114 proximately 5% to 10% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have AF, which compli

115 techniques in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention have been developed.

116 High bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have been widely excl

117 Icosapent ethyl significantly reduced percutaneous coronary intervention (hazard ratio, 0.68 [

118 l infarction (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.90]), percutaneous coronary intervention (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.

119 nd movement of the angiography system during percutaneous coronary intervention, illustrating the cou

120 rvention of nonculprit lesions after primary percutaneous coronary intervention improves outcomes in

121 2 coronary arteries before nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention in 93 patients with S

122 Among 7888 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in Alberta Canada, CA

123 Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer manne

124 Overall, there was no survival benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention in any subset defined

125 rit-lesion-only versus immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presentin

126 aspirin after an acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atri

127 ing total ischemic and bleeding events after percutaneous coronary intervention in the GLOBAL LEADERS

128 The role of percutaneous coronary interventions in addition to medic

129 underwent cardiac catheterization (139 with percutaneous coronary intervention) in the setting of OA

130 and late after an acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from AUGUST

131 ECMO alone and with concomitant procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention, intra-aortic balloon

132 s-of-function alleles in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is not recommended by

133 Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is nowadays the prefe

134 py (DAPT) cessation and adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown.

135 due to Decreased Clopidogrel Response After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) is a large, pragmati

136 ubjects With Atrial Fibrillation Who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), it is unclear if th

137 Incorporation of this strategic method for percutaneous coronary intervention may aid in the greate

138 to incorporating intravascular imaging with percutaneous coronary intervention may overcome the barr

139 ital mortality, use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulato

140 Use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulato

141 tion dose during cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (n=632) with or witho

142 oronary Syndrome Subjects Who Are to Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00097591).

143 In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of de novo saphenous

144 pared with femoral access, RA is used in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of less complex lesio

145 Complete revascularization with routine percutaneous coronary intervention of nonculprit lesions

146 This may help explain the benefit of routine percutaneous coronary intervention of obstructive noncul

147 end use of embolic protection devices during percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein gra

148 llowing revascularization strategies: either percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit-lesion

149 ltivessel disease who underwent a successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the IRA to test di

150 lation and recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention on a P2Y(12) inhibito

151 ention) or control (50 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention only).

152 on coronary angiography managed with either percutaneous coronary intervention or medical therapy.

153 0 patients treated with sonothrombolysis and percutaneous coronary intervention) or control (50 patie

154 n, that is, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, or equipoise coronar

155 ass surgery; heart valve repair/replacement; percutaneous coronary intervention; or heart/heart-lung

156 ighboring states without public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes (Delaware, C

157 and 2011 in states with public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes (New York an

158 ion myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI).

159 At the time of percutaneous coronary intervention, participants were ra

160 rillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome and/or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), patients with atria

161 ociated with lower MACCE rates compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) + OMT (adjusted

162 the benefit of urgent coronary angiogram and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after sudden ca

163 ur despite successful revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and antianginal

164 examined its long-term utilization following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and association

165 Its effect on payments and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary ar

166 edural myocardial infarction (PMI) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary by

167 cted medical therapy and transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are also associ

168 Vascular injury and inflammation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are associated

169 r adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are believed to

170 regimens in patients who undergo multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are sparse.

171 an acute coronary syndrome or have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are unclear.

172 unknown whether patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) benefit from ge

173 in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR in the

174 rtery bypass grafting (CABG) was superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for major acute

175 e were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group or corona

176 (FFR) in determining the appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been well e

177 Although results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been stead

178 ies examining sex-related outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported c

179 alue of prolonged bivalirudin infusion after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute corona

180 CATH was followed by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cases of sig

181 (LRPV), are increasingly revascularized with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in contemporary

182 pose of this study was to examine the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in older adults

183 An evolving strategy in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involves withdr

184 intensity of antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) irrespective of

185 Undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a risk facto

186 Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly

187 h nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear.

188 s remains true in patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.

189 tatus outcomes after chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.

190 Complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may have signif

191 valuated the prognostic implications of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) neutrophil-to-l

192 , this relationship has not been studied for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of chronic tota

193 This study sought to examine the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-flow-lim

194 rly PCI for STEMI) trial, angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit l

195 ent elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit

196 nts (MACE) compared with aspirin alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or acute corona

197 disease benefit from revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary art

198 uracy of a novel noninvasive FFR(CT)-derived percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) planning tool (

199 tive of the study was to evaluate changes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice in Eng

200 mpare a large cohort of R-PCI to traditional percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures perf

201 l demonstrated that staged nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced major c

202 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces mortali

203 cute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unexplo

204 s with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) require multipl

205 s across US hospitals in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with MC

206 al was a non-inferiority trial that compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using first-gen

207 t main coronary artery disease randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary

208 Surgery) trial, the effect of treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary

209 ative prognosis after revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary

210 flammatory risk (RIR) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with baseline l

211 Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contempora

212 real-world observational evidence comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary a

213 o predict the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within the ORBI

214 omic complexity of patients that may undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without on-site

215 STEMI-SCAD, acute revascularization included percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), n = 33 (62%),

216 ts) infusion before, and following, emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or to a contro

217 ry artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly t

218 marker-negative patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), periprocedural

219 volume and short-term adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the associatio

220 women undergoing cardiac catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was terminated

221 evascularization in the TAVR group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while those in

222 In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who did not re

223 revascularization is accomplished either by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with low risk

224 closure device (VCD) are thought to mitigate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related bleedin

225 myocardial ischemia and guide decisions for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

226 ing (CABG) has shown long-term benefits over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

227 dial infarction (NSTEMI) patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

228 DR for preventing AKI in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

229 ood pressure and long-term outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

230 ostic effects of FFR measured directly after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

231 t-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

232 for both bleeding and ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

233 AMs) following chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

234 d outcomes with CA among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

235 undergoing coronary angiography and possible percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

236 FR) provides decision-making guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

237 ne electrocardiographic monitoring following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is not well st

238 ates of cardiac procedures (Catheterization, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - PCI - and Coronary

239 wing a coronary revascularization procedure (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary art

240 admissions (ie, coronary angiography without percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], PCI, and coron

241 After percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs), patients rem

242 122 diagnostic coronary angiographies and 83 percutaneous coronary interventions) performed in 157 pa

243 tive platelet inhibition in the peri-primary percutaneous coronary intervention period.

244 ilar to their performances in the derivation percutaneous coronary intervention populations.

245 vasive strategy as an alternative to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment

246 me of patients with STEMI treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), with identifi

247 dial infarction scheduled to undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI).

248 ardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

249 risk of occupational exposure during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

250 .6% were active smokers at the time of their percutaneous coronary intervention procedure.

251 in 2.5% and 2.1% of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, respectiv

252 Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) has been show

253 ted myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, randomly allocated t

254 lation and recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention receiving a P2Y(12) i

255 e patients in New York's cardiac surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention registries in 2010 to

256 In a large multicenter CTO percutaneous coronary interventions registry, prior CABG

257 Primary percutaneous coronary intervention resulted indicated in

258 quiring inter-hospital transfers for primary percutaneous coronary intervention that reflects inter-f

259 ld change antiplatelet prescribing following percutaneous coronary intervention.The primary outcome w

260 ion myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no signifi

261 schemic and bleeding events at 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monothera

262 randomly assigned 15,991 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to 1-month dual antip

263 month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention to conventional 12-mo

264 has been advocated for saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention to decrease the incid

265 Most patients preferred percutaneous coronary intervention to either medical the

266 Veterans Affairs centers within 72 hours of percutaneous coronary intervention to intensive lipid-lo

267 nd survival after unprotected left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention (uLMS-PCI) is poorly

268 tion services, and had higher AMI volume and percutaneous coronary intervention use during the AMI ho

269 orting the use of intravascular imaging with percutaneous coronary intervention, utilization remains

270 The clinical success of percutaneous coronary intervention was 97.9%.

271 Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a

272 arction and multivessel disease, multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a

273 -dose intracoronary alteplase during primary percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with i

274 reserve, and perfusion defect size after CTO percutaneous coronary intervention was comparable betwee

275 ty trial, an all-comers population requiring percutaneous coronary intervention was enrolled across 3

276 ed over to invasive management on day 30 but percutaneous coronary intervention was not performed.

277 tegy was used in 163 patients (60.4%), and a percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 97 p

278 erformed, and in the coronary arteries where percutaneous coronary intervention was performed.

279 ergoing cardiac catheterisation and possible percutaneous coronary intervention was safe and can aid

280 Prior percutaneous coronary intervention was the strongest cli

281 Patients in the downstream group undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were further randomiz

282 Percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting s

283 iving 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with a polymer-free d

284 larization) were assessed and compared after percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent

285 had a higher frequency of bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention with both NSTEMI (11.

286 a and 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with DCS, identical t

287 on of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting ste

288 artery bypass grafting (CABG) is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting ste

289 PT; and extended-term (>12-month) DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting ste

290 among PARIS study participants who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting ste

291 tor monotherapy reduces major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting ste

292 iplatelet therapy in HBR patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Resolute Onyx dr

293 the association of all-cause mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention with site-reported bl

294 Mechanical reperfusion with percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and mor

295 In the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardia

296 The SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardia

297 ctiveness of 1-month DAPT duration following percutaneous coronary intervention with zotarolimus-elut

298 er bivalirudin or heparin monotherapy during percutaneous coronary intervention, with mandatory poten

299 itals was associated with performing primary percutaneous coronary intervention within the national g

300 0) with cardiogenic shock undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention without classic indic