ライフサイエンスコーパス: quantitative coronary angiography

1 er stenosis by invasive coronary angiography-quantitative coronary angiography).

2 defined as stenosis >/=50% luminal diameter (quantitative coronary angiography).

3 as evaluated at baseline and at 2 years with quantitative coronary angiography.

4 angiography with fractional flow reserve and quantitative coronary angiography.

5 graphy and graft failure (>=50% stenosis) by quantitative coronary angiography.

6 (EID)-CT and to compare measurements against quantitative coronary angiography.

7 ur network in measuring vessel diameter with Quantitative Coronary Angiography.

8 Significant stenosis was defined as >50% by quantitative coronary angiography.

9 e stenosis on FFR, especially in relation to quantitative coronary angiography.

10 lesion was assessed by FFR and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography.

11 f >=60% compared with <60%, as determined by quantitative coronary angiography.

12 ary artery disease (CAD) as defined by using quantitative coronary angiography.

13 stented coronary segment using 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography.

14 t was 6-month in-stent late loss measured by quantitative coronary angiography.

15 likelihood versus disease status defined by quantitative coronary angiography.

16 osis in 1 or more major coronary arteries by quantitative coronary angiography.

17 Fermi function deconvolution was compared to quantitative coronary angiography.

18 in-segment restenosis at 12-month follow-up quantitative coronary angiography.

19 erosclerosis by intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography.

20 The coronary angiograms were analyzed using quantitative coronary angiography.

21 hods were calculated relative to findings at quantitative coronary angiography.

22 giograms in the percent stenosis measured by quantitative coronary angiography.

23 minimal lumen diameter (MLD) was measured by quantitative coronary angiography.

24 sion of coronary atherosclerosis assessed by quantitative coronary angiography.

25 cise session, and 44 patients had subsequent quantitative coronary angiography.

26 s evaluated for the type of restenosis using quantitative coronary angiography.

27 of stenosis severity with computer-assisted quantitative coronary angiography.

28 llow-up coronary angiograms were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography.

29 y Doppler and coronary artery diameter using quantitative coronary angiography.

30 was lower for the bioresorbable scaffold by quantitative coronary angiography (1.15 mm vs 1.46 mm, p

31 sel segments were individually analyzed with quantitative coronary angiography: 1) the "stent," 2) th

32 By quantitative coronary angiography, 331 patients in the S

33 Blinded quantitative coronary angiography analyses of percent di

34 ts of coronary arterial stenosis severity by quantitative coronary angiography and (b) invasive measu

35 (2.9+/-0.4 versus 2.7+/-0.5 mm, P<0.001) by quantitative coronary angiography and a larger minimal s

36 line coronary blood flow was determined with quantitative coronary angiography and an intracoronary D

37 Six-month quantitative coronary angiography and clinical follow-up

38 coronary artery and vein graft stenoses with quantitative coronary angiography and core laboratory pa

39 hout ST-segment elevation underwent 3-vessel quantitative coronary angiography and coregistered near-

40 cross-sectional area (CSA) was determined by quantitative coronary angiography and coronary blood flo

41 of TIMI Grade 3 flow, all patients underwent quantitative coronary angiography and distal Doppler cor

42 An independent core laboratory performed quantitative coronary angiography and evaluated all pres

43 points as well as efficacy at 1 month using quantitative coronary angiography and histomorphometry.

44 nderwent coronary reactivity assessment with quantitative coronary angiography and intracoronary Dopp

45 r resistance were calculated on the basis of quantitative coronary angiography and intracoronary Dopp

46 Quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultr

47 Optimal stent deployment assessed by quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultr

48 expansion was assessed in all patients using quantitative coronary angiography and serial IVUS imagin

49 stic accuracy of stress-LGE analysis against quantitative coronary angiography and the stress-rest me

50 the percent coronary stenosis measured using quantitative coronary angiography and velocity reserve u

51 lculated from the diameter, as measured with quantitative coronary angiography, and flow velocity, as

52 Clinical characteristics, quantitative coronary angiography, and intravascular ult

53 nt change in CAD (%deltaCAD) was measured by quantitative coronary angiography, and percent change in

54 e of EID-CT and PCD-CT was compared by using quantitative coronary angiography as the reference stand

55 Restenosis was determined by quantitative coronary angiography at 6 months.

56 e compared in estrogen users and nonusers by quantitative coronary angiography at 6-month follow-up.

57 (60%) had both stress perfusion imaging and quantitative coronary angiography available, with extend

58 ms was evaluated by a consensus panel and by quantitative coronary angiography (average per-subject c

59 ypass surgery, both the consensus panel- and quantitative coronary angiography-based end points of co

60 y Doppler, and luminal diameter, measured by quantitative coronary angiography, before and after intr

61 a Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) study underwent quantitative coronary angiography, blood measurements of

62 Quantitative coronary angiography compared late lumen lo

63 sion, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), and quantitative coronary angiography data.

64 Despite similar inclusion criteria, quantitative coronary angiography-determined baseline le

65 s 0.8 (Q1-Q3: 0.4-1.6), 64% had Rose angina, quantitative coronary angiography diameter stenosis was

66 -contrast doses, respectively, compared with quantitative coronary angiography (diameter stenosis > o

67 However, quantitative coronary angiography does not provide a fun

68 stenosis by visual estimation (DSVE) and by quantitative coronary angiography (DSQCA) was compared w

69 esions (diameter stenosis <50% [mean 44%] by quantitative coronary angiography) from the Sirolimus-co

70 Comparison to quantitative coronary angiography (>/=50%) yielded a pre

71 Previous studies using quantitative coronary angiography have demonstrated that

72 roving minimum lumen diameter as measured by quantitative coronary angiography in coronary disease pa

73 ex artery (LCx) (n = 29) were evaluated with quantitative coronary angiography in order to determine

74 cy of PDS measurements was validated against quantitative coronary angiography in patients who underw

75 System) and ICA (>=50% diameter stenosis on quantitative coronary angiography) in a blinded fashion.

76 ex, requiring invasive techniques, including quantitative coronary angiography, intracoronary flow ve

77 adjunctive invasive diagnostic method among quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultraso

78 o underwent serial invasive imaging, such as quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultraso

79 s underwent serial invasive imaging, such as quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultraso

80 Postprocedural assessment using quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultraso

81 essel coronary stenosis (group II) underwent quantitative coronary angiography, MCE, and CBF velocity

82 ased PDS values showed higher agreement with quantitative coronary angiography (mean difference, 7.3%

83 pg/ml had tighter culprit vessel stenosis on quantitative coronary angiography (median stenosis 76% v

84 mpared to FFR (n = 44 coronary segments) and quantitative coronary angiography (n = 108 segments) in

85 atomically severe (>70% diameter stenosis on quantitative coronary angiography) or hemodynamically ob

86 disease severity: angina symptom score with quantitative coronary angiography ordinal correlation co

87 0001), which was higher than that of CTA and quantitative coronary angiography (P=0.01 and P<0.001, r

88 usion plethysmography, Doppler flow wire and quantitative coronary angiography, pressure wire, and th

89 The validity of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) after stent plac

90 ine coronary blood flow was determined using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and an intracoro

91 We prospectively performed quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascula

92 Complete quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and IVUS were ob

93 predefined reference standards were combined quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and single-photo

94 Utilising a novel 3-dimensional (3D) quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) application, we

95 CAD was defined by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) but computed tom

96 lesions with an independent assessment using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 175 randomly

97 culprit-lesion stenosis severity measured by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) on the benefit o

98 The quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) reference diamet

99 h a reference standard derived from invasive quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

100 d of reference was a 70% stenosis defined by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

101 e CAD, defined as >/=50% luminal stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

102 ial (>/= 50%) stenoses was assessed by using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

103 ere evaluated for coronary stenosis based on quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

104 ng multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

105 ransplant recipients within 6 +/- 11 days of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

106 ll as by a qualitative scale and compared to quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

107 intravascular coronary ultrasound (IVUS) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

108 ary stenosis was assessed by core laboratory quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

109 aphy (normal fractional flow reserve >0.8 or quantitative coronary angiography [QCA] showing no perce

110 of 525 patients were enrolled with completed quantitative coronary angiography, quantitative coronary

111 sults of conventional manual analysis, using quantitative coronary angiography results as a reference

112 Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no difference

113 Disease severity was assessed using quantitative coronary angiography, stress echocardiograp

114 n 91 consecutive patients with stents before quantitative coronary angiography, the reference standar

115 In comparison to computer-assisted quantitative coronary angiography, the sensitivity and s

116 In patients who underwent computer-assisted quantitative coronary angiography, the sensitivity and s

117 his report used intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography to explore the relatio

118 FFR and quantitative coronary angiography values were known; how

119 ce of obstructive coronary artery disease by quantitative coronary angiography was 68%.

120 is of more than 50% narrowing in diameter at quantitative coronary angiography was determined by usin

121 Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at basel

122 Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at basel

123 In 287 subjects, quantitative coronary angiography was performed at basel

124 In the ACUITY trial, 3-vessel quantitative coronary angiography was performed in a for

125 serve </=0.80 or diameter stenosis >/=80% on quantitative coronary angiography was used as reference

126 Quantitative coronary angiography was used to define ste

127 Quantitative coronary angiography was used to study epic

128 putational FFR, coronary CT angiography, and quantitative coronary angiography were evaluated against

129 acy of angiography by visual estimate and by quantitative coronary angiography when compared with FFR

130 on (r = -0.26), with a weaker correlation of quantitative coronary angiography with myocardial oxygen

131 reased from 0.16+/-0.18 to 0.27+/-0.20 mm on quantitative coronary angiography, with an increase in n