ライフサイエンスコーパス: revascularisation

1 attacks, strokes, and the need for arterial revascularisation).

2 urrent ischaemia, or the need for myocardial revascularisation).

3 nfarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation).

4 -procedural myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation.

5 fit from early and frequent monitoring after revascularisation.

6 history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation.

7 , myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation.

8 lesion or vessel revascularisation, and any revascularisation.

9 rasound follow-up is necessary after carotid revascularisation.

10 witch controlling both neuronal survival and revascularisation.

11 roke during the past two decades has been on revascularisation.

12 ifedipine, despite an increase in peripheral revascularisation.

13 failure, debilitating stroke, and peripheral revascularisation.

14 rction, or recurrent ischaemia necessitating revascularisation.

15 ociated with off-pump and on-pump myocardial revascularisation.

16 myocardial infarction, and any target-vessel revascularisation.

17 myocardial infarction, and any target-vessel revascularisation.

18 c events, especially the need for myocardial revascularisation.

19 farction, cardiac surgery, and target-vessel revascularisation.

20 rtery disease, not suitable for conventional revascularisation.

21 ently recover, either spontaneously or after revascularisation.

22 catheter arterial therapies, and portal vein revascularisation.

23 ment, calling into question any benefit from revascularisation.

24 tion for chest pain, and it is used to guide revascularisation.

25 antly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation.

26 ion, all-cause death was lower with complete revascularisation.

27 ne might achieve similar results to coronary revascularisation.

28 -popliteal, with or without infra-popliteal, revascularisation.

29 ous adverse events up to 30-days after first revascularisation.

30 al myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularisation.

31 essel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation.

32 , myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven revascularisation.

33 , myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation.

34 e risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularisation.

35 therapy (OMT), would benefit from additional revascularisation.

36 l admission for unstable angina, or coronary revascularisation.

37 ients needed clinically driven target lesion revascularisation.

38 use death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation.

39 or ischaemia-driven hospitalisation without revascularisation.

40 nt, reinfarction, or unplanned target lesion revascularisation.

41 onary angiography, 58.5% underwent inpatient revascularisation.

42 procedural myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularisation.

43 account when selecting patients for carotid revascularisation.

44 efinition that did not include target lesion revascularisation.

45 sis, myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularisation]).

46 0 [0.10-0.84], p=0.004) and those undergoing revascularisation (0.37 [0.15-0.93] p=0.02) after 48 h i

47 me: myocardial infarction (0.52, 0.38-0.70), revascularisation (0.54, 0.36-0.80), stroke (0.59, 0.45-

48 (0.63, 0.50-0.80, p<0.001) and target-vessel revascularisation (0.55, 0.50-0.60, p<0.001).

49 rction combined with the need for myocardial revascularisation (0.67; 0.46-0.96).

50 .64, 95% CI 0.49-0.84, p=0.001) and coronary revascularisation (0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93, p=0.016).

51 0]), stroke (0.73 [0.61-0.87]), and coronary revascularisation (0.80 [0.66-0.96]).

52 4 (8.1%) versus 208 (8.6%) for target-vessel revascularisation (0.93, 0.77-1.14; p=0.495).

53 1.23) and seemingly also by ischaemia-driven revascularisation (1.16, 0.997-1.34) with bivalirudin co

54 mly assigned to either OMT alone or OMT plus revascularisation (1:1) using a web-based system.

55 vs 38 [5%], 1.57 [1.04-2.36]), as was repeat revascularisation (112 [16%] vs 55 [8%], 2.02 [1.46-2.79

56 2.35, 95% CI 1.71-3.23; p<0.0001) and repeat revascularisation (18.3%, 16.7-20.0 vs 10.7%, 9.4-12.1;

57 ial infarction (46%, p=0.0066), and coronary revascularisation (38%, p=0.037).

58 p=0.0003) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (5.3% [169 of 3217] vs 3.9% [90 of 230

59 e of coronary artery disease (61%), coronary revascularisation (55%), or a positive stress test only

60 rdial infarction (7%, p=0.052), and coronary revascularisation (8%, p=0.034).

61 tid interventions 10.7% (11/103), lower limb revascularisations 9.8% (51/521)].

62 ower rates of ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (9.4%vs 15.1%, -5.7% [-8.6 to -2.7], 0

63 a history of chronic angina with incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary interventi

64 history of chronic angina who had incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary interventi

65 ve the prognosis of patients with incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary interventi

66 ere searched for randomised trials comparing revascularisation against medical therapy alone in clini

67 99, overall 0.87 0.79-0.96) and for coronary revascularisation alone (0.84, 0.75-0.94) and unstable a

68 The need for myocardial revascularisation alone was significantly reduced by 42%

69 myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularisation), analysed using the intention-to-trea

70 se alone, and there was less need for urgent revascularisation and fewer major non-fatal ischaemic co

71 Incidence of ischaemia-driven revascularisation and ischaemia-driven hospitalisation d

72 sed in patients undergoing elective coronary revascularisation and reperfusion after acute myocardial

73 ure persists in many individuals, even after revascularisation and standard medical therapies.

74 y and modified the association between early revascularisation and survival.

75 days, six patients had undergone peripheral revascularisation and were excluded, and ten withdrew or

76 tion for unstable angina requiring unplanned revascularisation) and in sensitivity analyses alternati

77 nfarction, or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation) and post-procedural minimal stent are

78 mortality, all myocardial infarction, or all revascularisation) and the device-oriented composite end

79 nfarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation) and the primary safety outcome measur

80 farction, and ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation), and target lesion failure for patien

81 ion, 65 (9%) had recurrent ischaemia needing revascularisation, and 100 (14%) had one or more of thes

82 ersus 10% (1.50, 1.04-2.17, p=0.032) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2.25, 0.93-5.48, p=

83 l infarction, ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation, and all revascularisation did not dif

84 ery bypass grafting, target lesion or vessel revascularisation, and any revascularisation.

85 myocardial infarction, BARC type 3 bleeding, revascularisation, and BARC type 2 bleeding (win ratio 1

86 cause death, stroke, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, and Bleeding Academic Research Consor

87 ular disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularisation, and cardiovascular death in primary c

88 erapy is a crucial accompaniment to coronary revascularisation, and data suggest that, in some subset

89 tery disease, intermittent claudication, leg revascularisation, and leg amputation).

90 non-fatal reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularisation, and major bleeding.

91 ding cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, revascularisation, and non-traumatic amputation within 5

92 myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke), revascularisation, and non-traumatic amputation, up to D

93 uctions in the incidence of heart attack, of revascularisation, and of ischaemic stroke, with each 1.

94 uded other ischaemic heart disease, coronary revascularisation, and peripheral arterial disease.

95 isks of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stent thrombosis.

96 ath, myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven revascularisation, and stent thrombosis.

97 l myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke.

98 non-procedural myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stroke.

99 for combined myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, and unstable angina (active treatment

100 failure as the first step towards validating revascularisation as a therapeutic option in heart failu

101 and physiologically indicated target lesion revascularisation) assessed at 24 months in the intentio

102 farction, and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation), assessed in the intention-to-treat (

103 cardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularisation, assessed in patients randomly assigne

104 farction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation at 1 year after randomisation.

105 omposite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularisation at 12 months in the intention-to-treat

106 farction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularisation at 4 months FINDINGS: 71 stents, 10-15

107 , myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven revascularisation at 48 h) by 19% (3.6% vs 4.4%, OR 0.81

108 cardial infarction, and repeat target-lesion revascularisation at 9 months.

109 erence in a long-term composite of death and revascularisation between the 2 methods.

110 n, stroke, or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation between the groups.

111 ction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between groups at 12 months after the

112 ction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after

113 imus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE) trial to compare the perf

114 lead not only to recurrent angina and repeat revascularisation but also to acute coronary syndromes.

115 arction, stroke, and unplanned target lesion revascularisation by day 3 after randomisation.

116 ts were reduced by 36% (-55 to -9), coronary revascularisations by 31% (-59 to 16), and rate of strok

117 Coronary artery revascularisation can be performed surgically or percuta

118 tients without heart failure (19%) underwent revascularisation compared with 47 with heart failure (3

119 myocardial infarction, or clinically driven revascularisation compared with angiography guidance alo

120 heart failure, the adjusted HR for death in revascularisation compared with receiving medical therap

121 sion, the cardiac death risk reduction after revascularisation, compared with medical therapy alone,

122 Carotid revascularisation, comprising either carotid endarterect

123 Most revascularisation data are based on prevalently White, n

124 ded comprehensive PCI strategy, encompassing revascularisation decision making and stent optimisation

125 d FFR or intravascular ultrasound, including revascularisation decisions and optimisation of the sten

126 Revascularisation decisions based on angiography-derived

127 ercially available Solitaire stent-retriever revascularisation device (Medtronic, Irvine, CA, USA).

128 n death, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularisation; device and procedural success; and an

129 ven target lesion revascularisation, and all revascularisation did not differ between BVS and CoCr-EE

130 cardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, urgent revascularisation due to unstable angina, and hospital a

131 oke, or severe recurrent ischaemia requiring revascularisation during 6 months.

132 ducted at 30 centres with stroke and carotid revascularisation expertise in Europe and Canada.

133 Study (COSS), a randomised trial of surgical revascularisation for complete carotid artery occlusion

134 The potential benefit of revascularisation for heart failure is not established.

135 (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularisation for ischaemia), major bleeding, and ne

136 ts [MACE; death, reinfarction, target vessel revascularisation for ischaemia, or stroke]).

137 ht be an important adjunct or alternative to revascularisation for patients with hibernating myocardi

138 was performed of all patients who had renal revascularisation for renal impairment in a defined geog

139 gy (including early coronary angiography and revascularisation) for non-ST-elevation acute coronary s

140 vely) and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularisation (four cases [1%] vs three cases [2%],

141 For OMT alone versus OMT plus revascularisation, four versus three patients had peripr

142 (3.6%) cardiovascular deaths in the complete revascularisation group compared with 209 (4.6%) in the

143 urred in 308 (7.2%) patients in the complete revascularisation group compared with 370 (8.1%) patient

144 382 (9.0%) of 4259 patients in the complete revascularisation group compared with 528 (11.5%) of 457

145 tween the groups (153 [3.6%] in the complete revascularisation group vs 161 [3.5%] in the culprit les

146 ne group, 5173 (11.3%) wins for the OMT plus revascularisation group, and 35 395 (77.3%) ties between

147 eriprocedural death occurred in the OMT plus revascularisation group, which was attributed to decompe

148 as a pair with each patient in the OMT plus revascularisation group, with a win declared for the pat

149 ivided by the number of wins in the OMT plus revascularisation group.

150 Patients who underwent revascularisation had better survival in all countries.

151 f incident myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation, hospital admission with congestive he

152 The need for revascularisation, implantation of an implantable cardia

153 The cardiac survival benefit after revascularisation improved with longer follow-up times a

154 d most robust evidence to date that complete revascularisation improves important cardiovascular clin

155 No evidence for a benefit of revascularisation in addition to OMT was found in the fi

156 whether to undertake a strategy of complete revascularisation in cases in which percutaneous coronar

157 associated with improved graft function and revascularisation in diabetic mice.

158 ic afterloader can be used to reduce overall revascularisation in patients undergoing treatment for d

159 revascularisation or hospitalisation without revascularisation in patients with a history of chronic

160 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for revascularisation in patients with diabetes and multives

161 rafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary ar

162 coronary intervention is used as the mode of revascularisation in patients with STEMI.

163 ntrally adjudicated endpoints after coronary revascularisation in patients without an indication for

164 ischaemic stroke, and the need for coronary revascularisation in people without kidney disease, but

165 tinuing the trial and those who had surgical revascularisation in the month before study entry.

166 myocardial infarctions and ischaemia-driven revascularisations in the QFR-guided group than in the a

167 , heart failure hospitalisation and coronary revascularisation) in patients with T2DM.

168 are the outcomes of direct (DR) and indirect revascularisation (IR) and compare our results to the li

169 Revascularisation is a key step for tissue regeneration

170 Myocardial revascularisation is a mainstay in the treatment of symp

171 Incomplete revascularisation is common after percutaneous coronary

172 mpairment is not predictable, and thus renal revascularisation is controversial.

173 increasing numbers of patients eligible for revascularisation, ischaemic stroke remains a significan

174 lar events, including myocardial infarction, revascularisation, ischaemic stroke, peripheral artery d

175 Myocardial revascularisation may improve symptom status, exercise c

176 Early revascularisation may offer a similar survival benefit i

177 e thrombosis, medical management or surgical revascularisation might be preferred options.

178 ly assigned to OMT alone (n=215) or OMT plus revascularisation (n=214).

179 (Functional Testing Underlying Coronary Revascularisation; NCT01881555).

180 th, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation occurred in 356 (14.8%) patients who r

181 se death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and revascularisation occurred in 84 versus 74 participants

182 of 13% (95% CI 7-19; p<0.0001), in coronary revascularisation of 19% (95% CI 15-24; p<0.0001), and i

183 ents allocated to angiography-guided PCI had revascularisation of all identified stenoses.

184 In revascularisation of left main coronary artery disease,

185 era of stenting and optimum medical therapy, revascularisation of patients with diabetes and multives

186 y intervention (PCI) is increasingly used in revascularisation of patients with left main coronary ar

187 Revascularisation of renal artery stenosis in heart fail

188 l randomised controlled trials support early revascularisation of the culprit vessel in infarct-relat

189 x is a good predictor of the impact of renal revascularisation on improving renal function with good

190 cell therapy use in patients with no further revascularisation options while on optimal medical treat

191 he carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosi

192 r myocardial infarction, which can result in revascularisation or cardiac death.

193 educe the composite rate of ischaemia-driven revascularisation or hospitalisation without revasculari

194 time to first occurrence of ischaemia-driven revascularisation or ischaemia-driven hospitalisation wi

195 rventional strategy (angiography followed by revascularisation) or a conservative strategy (ischaemia

196 site of death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularisation, or bailout glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhi

197 oke, admission for unstable angina, arterial revascularisation, or cardiovascular death (prespecified

198 on to hospital for unstable angina, arterial revascularisation, or cardiovascular death) and the prot

199 ospitalisation for unstable angina, arterial revascularisation, or cardiovascular death.

200 l infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable or pr

201 l infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalization for unstable or pr

202 ath, myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or stent thrombosis at 48 h.

203 cute coronary heart disease events, coronary revascularisation, or stroke.

204 ath, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularisation, or unstable angina; key secondary end

205 ocardial infarction, or repeat target-lesion revascularisation over 290 days compared with 51 [correc

206 acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or coronary revascularisation) per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholest

207 e three categories of outcomes were coronary revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention or

208 olving 19 806 patients (10 023 randomised to revascularisation plus medical therapy and 9783 to medic

209 patients, randomisation to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy led to reduced ca

210 The value of elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy over medical ther

211 unstable angina, heart failure, any coronary revascularisation procedure and/or any cardiovascular de

212 t, or stroke or death within 30 days after a revascularisation procedure of the qualifying lesion dur

213 endovascular treatment group) as their first revascularisation procedure through a secure online rand

214 an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion sh

215 an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion.

216 an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion.

217 The cost of the initial revascularisation procedure was higher than when a routi

218 early follow-up MRI scan (within 12 h of the revascularisation procedure) and defined as a more than

219 th, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any arterial revascularisation procedure).

220 were collected up to 30 days after the first revascularisation procedure.

221 related to determination of infarct size and revascularisation procedure.

222 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.94; p=0.01) and arterial revascularisation procedures (284 [6.1%] vs 352 [7.6%];

223 We identified revascularisation procedures undertaken during these adm

224 r defibrillator, and who were ineligible for revascularisation procedures were randomly assigned (1:1

225 Rates of coronary revascularisation procedures were similar (315 [15.2%] v

226 yocardial infarctions, strokes, and coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one-quarter for e

227 sudden death, heart failure, coronary artery revascularisation procedures, and non-fatal and fatal st

228 onary artery disease, who account for 25% of revascularisation procedures, is much debated.

229 s can be treated successfully using coronary revascularisation procedures, re-occlusion of the treate

230 estenosis and bypass graft failure following revascularisation procedures.

231 Percutaneous transmyocardial laser revascularisation (PTMR) is a proposed catheter-based th

232 The ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation rate was 23.8% after 4 months, and the

233 fter 4 months, and the overall target lesion revascularisation rate was 45% after 1 year.

234 6-2.51), and had higher urgent target vessel revascularisation rates (66 [4%] vs 21 [1%]; 2.39, 1.23-

235 Complete revascularisation reduced new myocardial infarctions com

236 infarction and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation reduced the composite of cardiovascula

237 % CI 0.68-0.98]; p=0.030), and target lesion revascularisation (RR 0.72 [95% CI 0.60-0.86]; p=0.0002)

238 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.94) and revascularisation (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87) was more s

239 balloon angioplasty, stenting, and surgical revascularisation should be considered in these patients

240 ifferences in ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, or composite advers

241 However, restenosis and a need for repeat revascularisation still occurs after DES use.

242 In chronic ischaemic heart failure, revascularisation strategies control symptoms but are le

243 tients, and their families to select optimal revascularisation strategies.

244 d at least 250 patients, compared a complete revascularisation strategy (with PCI) to a culprit lesio

245 ntion (PCI) has replaced thrombolysis as the revascularisation strategy for many patients presenting

246 The optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with left main c

247 ed decision making tool to select an optimal revascularisation strategy in patients with complex coro

248 rst with a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy in terms of preventing major

249 randomised trials, the effect of a complete revascularisation strategy on major cardiovascular event

250 2 trial, a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy was associated with a better

251 r drug eluting stenting (DES) as their first revascularisation strategy.

252 ered for a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy.

253 arction or acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, stroke), 396 propensity-matched contr

254 ase], NOBLE [Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularisation Study], and EXCEL [Evaluation of XIENC

255 structive coronary artery disease in need of revascularisation, surgical or percutaneous intervention

256 care delivery systems prioritising immediate revascularisation through percutaneous coronary interven

257 Transmyocardial laser revascularisation (TMLR) is used to treat patients with

258 Transmyocardial revascularisation (TMR) is an operative treatment for re

259 longer lesions must be treated with surgical revascularisation to achieve acceptable long-term outcom

260 STICH) trial, PPAR-2 trial and Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial have all reported their results

261 The Complete Revascularisation Trialists' Collaboration aimed to dete

262 or non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, unstable angina, and new angina durin

263 here were no overall differences in coronary revascularisation, use of drug treatment for acute coron

264 nalysed the risk of stroke within 30 days of revascularisation using a per-protocol analysis.

265 th, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation versus CABG.

266 opment of a randomised trial of renal artery revascularisation versus medical therapy in heart failur

267 een DES and PTCA for target lesion or vessel revascularisation was 0.30 (0.17-0.51).

268 After adjusting for co-variables, inpatient revascularisation was associated with approximately a 30

269 99 [95% CI 1.66-5.39]; p=0.0002); and repeat revascularisation was estimated in 17% after PCI versus

270 Revascularisation was performed in 688 (69.5%) of 990 ta

271 al strategy (routine angiography followed by revascularisation) was better than a conservative strate

272 ry or recurrent, and the need for myocardial revascularisation, was always based on objective electro

273 left main coronary artery disease requiring revascularisation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1

274 with critical limb ischaemia unsuitable for revascularisation were enrolled from 171 sites in 30 cou

275 patients with LVEF <=40% requiring surgical revascularisation were enrolled.

276 G, although myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation were higher with PCI.

277 selected for management without [corrected] revascularisation were randomly assigned to clopidogrel

278 hibitor monotherapy with DAPT after coronary revascularisation were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase,

279 that occurring within 30 days of their first revascularisation, were cardiovascular (61 deaths in the

280 lls (MSCs) improves islet graft function and revascularisation, which was associated with the mainten

281 coronary syndromes, managed medically and by revascularisation, who would benefit from tirofiban.

282 ficant reductions in target lesion or vessel revascularisation with BMS compared with PTCA (RR 0.68 [

283 s associated with a significant benefit from revascularisation with improved renal function (p = 0.00

284 ists in the setting of percutaneous coronary revascularisation with intracoronary stents have shown a

285 o compare clinical outcomes for renal artery revascularisation with medical therapy for renal artery

286 might persist or reoccur despite successful revascularisation with percutaneous coronary interventio

287 rombosis, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation), with an expected event rate of 6.2%

288 Compared with medical therapy alone, revascularisation yielded a lower risk of cardiac death