ライフサイエンスコーパス: target-lesion revascularization

1 c death, target vessel MI, or symptom-driven target lesion revascularization).

2 ency bypass procedure, disabling stroke, and target lesion revascularization).

3 rising mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization).

4 from binary restenosis or from the need for target-lesion revascularization).

5 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization).

6 ary angiography, and only 9 (2.6%) underwent target lesion revascularization.

7 ocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization.

8 n-ACS presentation mode at the time of first target lesion revascularization.

9 infarction related to the target vessel, or target lesion revascularization.

10 The primary end point was target lesion revascularization.

11 high rates of in-stent restenosis and repeat target lesion revascularization.

12 SR, none of them were associated with repeat target lesion revascularization.

13 farction attributed to the target vessel, or target lesion revascularization.

14 myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization.

15 n, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization.

16 ad an MI event within 7 days of either ST or target lesion revascularization.

17 ; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of target lesion revascularization.

18 s with higher freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

19 0.07-0.58]; P=0.003), mainly driven by less target lesion revascularization.

20 mbosis, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization.

21 omposite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization.

22 lar rate of restenosis and clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

23 mary efficacy endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

24 of reduction in the risk of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization.

25 ary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.

26 y only if provisional stenting is considered target-lesion revascularization.

27 s were associated with a marked reduction in target-lesion revascularization.

28 duction in clinical restenosis as defined by target-lesion revascularization.

29 ith increased rates of device thrombosis and target-lesion revascularization.

30 r follow-up there was a stepwise decrease in target lesion revascularization (11% vs. 19% and 17%, re

31 e no significant differences in the rates of target lesion revascularization (11.6% versus 11.8%; P=0

32 Angioplasty with PCB versus UCB reduces target lesion revascularization (12.2% versus 27.7%; OR,

33 ent, the repeat-IRT group had lower rates of target lesion revascularization (23.5% versus 54.6%; P<0

34 ow-up of 1.5 years the PES patients had less target lesion revascularization (28% vs. 5%, hazard rati

35 mary end point were driven by a reduction in target lesion revascularization (3.1% versus 8.2%; P < 0

36 versus 2.4%; P<0.0001), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (3.6% versus 6.9%; P<0.0

37 [7.1%] versus 15 [34.9%], P<0.01) as well as target lesion revascularizations (3 [7.1%] versus 12 [27

38 %, respectively; P=0.18), or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (3.0% and 2.5%, respecti

39 ascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002), and target-lesion revascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002)

40 f 382 [0.5%] vs 11 of 365 [3.0%]; P = .009), target lesion revascularization (4 of 382 [1.0%] vs 19 o

41 of reduction in the risk of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (4.1% versus 6.6%; odds

42 nosis (10% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.35), [corrected] target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.37

43 ntly lower 12-month rates of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (4.5% vs. 7.5%; hazard r

44 rsus 2.5%; P=0.43), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (5.2% versus 6.5%; P=0.3

45 P<0.001) and for rates of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (5.9% versus 16.7%; P=0.

46 However, neither clinically driven target lesion revascularization (6.3% zotarolimus vs. 3.

47 ry restenosis (63.8% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.0001), target lesion revascularization (66.7% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.

48 ts (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; 7.3% versus 12.8%; haza

49 he MGuard, driven by greater ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (8.6% versus 0.9%; P=0.0

50 vely), MI (2.6%, 3.8% and 2.9%, p = 0.94) or target lesion revascularization (9.0%, 8.3% and 11.5%, p

51 After a median of 13.2 months (9.2-17.6), target lesion revascularization (9.8% versus 10.2%; P=0.

52 CI, 0.06-0.69; P = .01) and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (9 [1.6%] vs 32 [5.7%];

53 on: 1.5% versus 0%, P=0.421; ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization: 9.6% versus 4.4%, hazar

54 get vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (a device-oriented compo

55 e-year mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization after multivessel stenti

56 ow-up at 24 months revealed a lower risk for target lesion revascularization after PEB angioplasty an

57 forward in reducing rates of restenosis and target lesion revascularization after percutaneous coron

58 use was associated with a small increase in target lesion revascularization and a modest reduction i

59 her periprocedural CK-MB release but a lower target lesion revascularization and a trend toward lower

60 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization and definite stent throm

61 Secondary endpoints were freedom from target lesion revascularization and from major amputatio

62 al success, major in-hospital complications, target lesion revascularization and long-term (one year)

63 Target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardia

64 Clinical outcomes, including target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis, we

65 assigned to radiation therapy required less target lesion revascularization and target vessel revasc

66 e; secondary end points included the rate of target-lesion revascularization and binary restenosis at

67 l nitinol stent placement was not considered target-lesion revascularization and loss in patency, no

68 Provisional stent placement was considered target-lesion revascularization and loss of primary pate

69 ent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or target lesion revascularization) and Academic Research C

70 primary effectiveness (clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) and safety (composite c

71 m efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myoc

72 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse card

73 device-oriented MACE (cardiac death, MI, and target lesion revascularization), and stent thrombosis a

74 nd points were major adverse cardiac events, target lesion revascularization, and angiographic resten

75 ardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and bleeding).

76 th, major amputations, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and clinical outcomes.

77 ardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and coronary artery byp

78 Secondary end points were binary restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and definite stent/scaf

79 dary endpoints were angiographic restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardi

80 arction, definite/probable stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardi

81 oints (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) u

82 ith PTA strikingly reduce 1-year restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel occlu

83 l myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and the primary safety

84 target vessel-related myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, and hospitalization for

85 nt was a 30-day composite of death, emergent target lesion revascularization, angiographic thrombosis

86 However, the high rates of target lesion revascularization associated with use of B

87 mission and death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year were evaluated

88 Variables associated with target lesion revascularization at 1 year were explored

89 cidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1 year.

90 r effective lumen area increased the risk of target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up (cut

91 that residual dissection was associated with target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up (RR=

92 freedom from restenosis or clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months.

93 lative incidence of major adverse events and target lesion revascularization at 24 months.

94 giographic diameter stenosis at 6 months and target lesion revascularization at 24 months.

95 te of all death, target limb amputation, and target lesion revascularization at 30 days.

96 ective, resulting in markedly lower rates of target lesion revascularization at 4 years, with similar

97 end point was freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 6 months.

98 Target lesion revascularization at one year was 14.5% vs

99 el-related reinfarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at 1 year.

100 ath, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization at 12-months as analyzed

101 ardial infarction [TVMI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year in 2,008 pati

102 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year with BVS comp

103 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year.

104 he composite end point (death, Q-wave-MI and target lesion revascularization) at 1-year follow-up was

105 h, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 2-year follow-up (ha

106 rget vessel-related MI, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 24 months.

107 bosis, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 24-month follow-up w

108 rse events=death, target limb amputation, or target lesion revascularization) at 6 and 12 months.

109 or adverse cardiac events (death, MI, and re-target lesion revascularization) at 6 months (MI versus

110 ts (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 9 and 12 months.

111 l myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at the longest follow-u

112 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) at 1 year.

113 f being in the top 3 treatments based on low target lesion revascularization, but there was no statis

114 tal MI, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization, but there were no diffe

115 myocardial infarction, emergency bypass, or target lesion revascularization by 30 days-was observed

116 < 0.0001), and reduced the 12-month rates of target lesion revascularization by 65% (7.4% vs. 20.9%,

117 = 0.0065), and reduced the one-year rate of target lesion revascularization by 68% (6.2% vs. 19.4%,

118 re-metal stent reduced the 12-month rates of target-lesion revascularization by 73% (4.4% versus 15.1

119 year angiographic follow-up not subjected to target-lesion revascularization by the 6-month angiogram

120 ere IVI guidance was associated with reduced target lesion revascularization, cardiac death, and sten

121 nts through 12 months were clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) and late lumen

122 mary patency, freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), major adverse

123 for major adverse cardiac events and 20% for target-lesion revascularization compared with 36% (P=0.0

124 cquired stent malapposition and related less target lesion revascularization (consistent with less ne

125 c patients were at increased risk for repeat target-lesion revascularization consistently across the

126 th, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization continued to diverge in

127 At 12 months, the absolute difference in target-lesion revascularization continued to increase an

128 myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization), definite/probable sten

129 er effective lumen area, was associated with target lesion revascularization during 1-year follow-up

130 stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization during follow-up.

131 , death, acute myocardial infarction, and/or target lesion revascularization) end point was recorded

132 ral versus selective DES era was $16,000 per target lesion revascularization event avoided, $27,000 p

133 Freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization for the helical compared

134 ints of the study were the 12-month rates of target-lesion revascularization for ischemia (analysis p

135 rval, 0.56 to 0.64), 11.2% versus 17.9%; and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95%

136 confidence interval, 1.03-1.53; P=0.026) and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95%

137 redictor of 1-year repeat revascularization (target lesion revascularization: hazard ratio: 1.34; 95%

138 (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.08; p = 0.23), target lesion revascularization (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64

139 cardial infarction (TV-MI), ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR), and stent thro

140 ocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [ID-TLR]) as well as its

141 ocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [ID-TLR]), and target le

142 Independent predictors of target lesion revascularization in the deferred lesions

143 ficantly increased rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the index event culpr

144 %, 17.6% vs. 17.9%), however, there was less target lesion revascularization in the stent-like group

145 el myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization in these studies (mean f

146 ES (10.8% vs. 11.6, p = 0.65), despite fewer target lesion revascularizations in patients with EES (2

147 in the rates of angiographic restenosis and target-lesion revascularization in all subgroups examine

148 74 lesions (74%) in the PTA group (P<0.001); target lesion revascularization, in 12 (18%) versus 29 (

149 Over this time period, the incidence of target lesion revascularization increased from 4.1 to 5.

150 ated with IRT compared with placebo had more target lesion revascularization (IRT, 21.6% versus place

151 MI, whereas the more frequent occurrence of target lesion revascularization is associated with a fin

152 tent restenosis (ISR) in patients undergoing target lesion revascularization is well characterized an

153 No patient in the 192Ir group sustained a target-lesion revascularization later than 10 months.

154 Clinically driven target lesion revascularization, major amputation, and t

155 Among 48 patients with target lesion revascularization (mean age 70.3+/-10.6 ye

156 tallic coronary stents, such as the risks of target lesion revascularization, neoatherosclerosis, pre

157 Clinically driven target lesion revascularization occurred for 77 DCS and

158 However, target lesion revascularization occurred less frequently

159 ts (2.3%; P value for difference, 0.87), and target-lesion revascularization occurred in 22 (2.9%) ve

160 wave MI after PCI hospitalization, or urgent target-lesion revascularization occurred in 40% of place

161 MVO was a strong predictor of target lesion revascularization occurrence (P=0.017 for

162 [95% CI, 0.25-0.54]) driven by reduction in target lesion revascularization (odds ratio, 0.28 [95% C

163 y, defined as freedom from clinically driven target-lesion revascularization or access-circuit thromb

164 s were assessed with respect to the need for target-lesion revascularization or nontarget-lesion reva

165 Freedom from death, target lesion revascularization, or any amputation of th

166 with a significant and durable reduction in target lesion revascularization over the 4-year follow-u

167 f cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/target lesion revascularization (P=0.012).

168 n (P=0.01), stent thrombosis (P=0.0006), and target lesion revascularization (P=0.02).

169 point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were nonin

170 and Rutherford class change at 6 months, and target lesion revascularization plus major adverse clini

171 02), due to fewer myocardial infarctions and target lesion revascularization procedures.

172 arm driven by an increase in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate (12[16.2%] versus 4

173 giographic follow-up underestimates the true target lesion revascularization rate in the Polymer-Base

174 l follow-up revealed one cardiac death and a target lesion revascularization rate of 17.8%.

175 d similar long-term clinical outcome; 1-year target lesion revascularization rate was 26% with ELCA+P

176 ry angiographic restenosis rate was 22%, the target lesion revascularization rate was 26%, and the ta

177 Secondary end points included target-lesion revascularization rate and changes in Ruth

178 essive decreases of restenosis (P=0.002) and target lesion revascularization rates (P=0.007) were fou

179 Total (clinically and non-clinically driven) target lesion revascularization rates at 9 months were 9

180 Target lesion revascularization rates occurred in 8% of

181 h oral agents or insulin had higher one-year target lesion revascularization rates than non-diabetic

182 At 1 year, the target lesion revascularization rates were 30% (n=10) ve

183 e, there were no deaths in either group, and target lesion revascularization rates were the same (16.

184 pital outcome, with relatively low long-term target lesion revascularization rates.

185 Target-lesion revascularization rates were 14.7% and 44.

186 ngioplasty, primary patency and freedom from target lesion revascularization remained superior compar

187 The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent t

188 l infarction (RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.76-1.71]), target lesion revascularization (RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.67-

189 infarction (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.26-2.17) and target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08-

190 n, emergent coronary artery bypass grafting, target lesion revascularization, stroke, or stent thromb

191 rdiac events, driven by a lower incidence of target lesion revascularization/target vessel revascular

192 e patients in the BioFreedom stent group had target lesion revascularization than those in the Orsiro

193 m, in-stent late loss correlated better with target-lesion revascularization than in-segment late los

194 ears included freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization, the primary safety end

195 Other end points included target lesion revascularization, thrombosis, ipsilateral

196 limb major amputation and clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 12 months after

197 limb major amputation and clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 12 months.

198 s assessed as freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 60 months.

199 control stent had strikingly lower rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (3.9% vs. 16.0%, p

200 3% vs. 5.4%, p = 1.00), clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.0% vs. 6.5%, p

201 men had higher unadjusted one-year rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.6% vs. 3.2%, p

202 ials; n = 2,422) similar point estimates for target lesion revascularization (TLR) (PES: 8.6%, 95% CI

203 year rates were: mortality 4.4%, MI 2.9% and target lesion revascularization (TLR) 7.4%.

204 ow-up demonstrating significant decreases in target lesion revascularization (TLR) and angiographic r

205 ath, definite stent thrombosis, and ischemic target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel

206 Restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel

207 apy trials who underwent repeat percutaneous target lesion revascularization (TLR) because of resteno

208 s defined using three different definitions: target lesion revascularization (TLR) beyond 30 days, ta

209 ed secondary outcomes of primary patency and target lesion revascularization (TLR) estimated with Kap

210 mg and 5 mg-in achieving low rates of repeat target lesion revascularization (TLR) in de novo native

211 ocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in the per-protoco

212 Target lesion revascularization (TLR) occurred in 15 of

213 Target lesion revascularization (TLR) occurred in 19 pat

214 Repeat target lesion revascularization (TLR) occurred in 28 pat

215 atients assigned to clinical follow-up only, target lesion revascularization (TLR) occurred in 6.6% o

216 ry outcome measure was the clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at 9 months.

217 ng mean late loss was associated with higher target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates (P<0.001).

218 Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 14.6% for 1 or

219 At one-year follow-up, target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 16.6% in diabe

220 At one-year follow-up, target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 19.4% for grou

221 During follow-up, target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 28% in IDDM, s

222 Rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were 21.5% for the

223 m all causes, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR), among patients tr

224 death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and a composite o

225 ency and timing of staged revascularization, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and other nontarg

226 rdial infarction (MI), and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), compared with dat

227 g well-known risk factors for restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR), risk groups were

228 The primary end point was 12-month target lesion revascularization (TLR)-free survival.

229 th, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR).

230 ed: 1) death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR); and 2) major blee

231 ifferences in 4-year death (12% versus 13%), target lesion revascularization (TLR, 13 versus 17%, P=0

232 However, the target-lesion revascularization (TLR) rate was 20.2% for

233 Efficacy outcomes were primary patency, target-lesion revascularization (TLR), and quality-of-li

234 iac deaths, 4 myocardial infarctions, and 18 target-lesion revascularizations (TLR; 12 percutaneous t

235 binary restenosis, and clinical recurrence (target lesion revascularization [TLR]) after coronary st

236 ocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), with significant

237 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]).

238 imilar safety outcomes and clinically driven target lesion revascularization to 2 years.

239 At 5 years, 53 patients without target lesion revascularization underwent final imaging.

240 Freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization was >90% at 12 months bu

241 During follow-up (18 months), target lesion revascularization was 11% in multiple SVG

242 During follow up, target lesion revascularization was 15% in multivessel a

243 The rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization was 2.4% in the DCB arm

244 After two years, target lesion revascularization was 5.8% and 21.3% in SE

245 Target lesion revascularization was 7% (95% CI, 3% to 14

246 7.6% for DCB (P=0.48), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization was 7.3% for DA+DCB and

247 Freedom from target lesion revascularization was 84.6% for Viabahn (9

248 years, in sirolimus versus control patients, target lesion revascularization was 9.4% versus 24.2% (p

249 Freedom from target lesion revascularization was 96.4% versus 81.0% (

250 rrence of death or MI within 7 days of ST or target lesion revascularization was assessed.

251 At 1-year follow-up, target lesion revascularization was more common in lesio

252 Clinically driven target lesion revascularization was necessary in 14% of

253 btained in all patients at 21 +/- 10 months: target lesion revascularization was needed in 30 patient

254 Target lesion revascularization was needed in 5 radiothe

255 /=1 Rutherford category without the need for target lesion revascularization was observed in 35 of 45

256 Target lesion revascularization was performed in 290 BMS

257 Target lesion revascularization was performed in 425 pat

258 At 270 days, target lesion revascularization was reduced in diabetic

259 Target lesion revascularization was required in 19.2% (2

260 Target lesion revascularization was required in 2 of 10

261 In 3 years of follow-up, target lesion revascularization was significantly less i

262 ensity-adjusted 365-day clinically indicated target lesion revascularization was significantly lower

263 The rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization was significantly lower

264 Target-lesion revascularization was 23%.

265 The only independent predictor of target-lesion revascularization was a larger overall ath

266 then followed up for at least 9 months, and target-lesion revascularization was assessed.

267 ccess--lumen dimensions were larger and late target-lesion revascularization was lower in lesions tre

268 ring the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patient

269 Target-lesion revascularization was reduced from 18.9% t

270 Target-lesion revascularization was required in 3.0 perc

271 At 3-year follow-up, target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower

272 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower

273 Target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower

274 et vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) was 5.4% for both devic

275 ombined end point of death, reinfarction, or target-lesion revascularization) was recorded until 4 mo

276 l myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was the primary end poi

277 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization, was significantly lower

278 At 9 months, clinical restenosis, defined as target-lesion revascularization, was 4.1% in the sirolim

279 ber of events and 9-month rates for ischemic target lesion revascularization were 27 (13.9%) vs 12 (6

280 ission, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization were compared at 2 years

281 Rates of target lesion revascularization were greater for PVI tha

282 When patients with a target lesion revascularization were included, luminal l

283 .3% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.284), rates of 12-month target lesion revascularization were similar (4.5% vs. 3

284 The results of binary restenosis and target lesion revascularization were similar.

285 The 4-year rates of target-lesion revascularization were markedly reduced in

286 nary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year

287 h, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) were assessed and compa

288 with superior freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization when compared with PTA (

289 3.6 patients avoided the need for subsequent target lesion revascularization, when compared with pati

290 myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization, whereas no significant

291 Two-year freedom from target lesion revascularization with primary DES placeme

292 r, a signal toward increased ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS was observed.

293 ested a signal toward higher ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS.

294 h a more common secondary end point, such as target lesion revascularization, with the aim to increas

295 (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed

296 any segment other than the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed

297 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 12 months.

298 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 2 years.

299 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, within 5 years.

300 ower angiographic efficacy, a higher rate of target lesion revascularization, without thrombotic safe