ライフサイエンスコーパス: ST segment

1 Fetal ECG ST-segment analysis used as an adjunct to conventional i

2 The ST-segment and adjacent T-wave (ST-T wave) amplitudes of

3 after nitroglycerin administration with less ST-segment depression (P=0.003) and therefore myocardial

4 ST-segment depression was more prevalent in patients wit

5 ncluding younger age of onset, more frequent ST-segment depression, higher prevalence of neurologic d

6 e, smoking status, diabetes, heart rate, and ST-segment depression.

7 median of 5 electrocardiography leads showed ST-segment deviation (quartile [Q]1 to Q3: 4 to 6); 49.8

8 METHODS AND Participants were patients with ST-segment-elevated MI who were randomly assigned to rec

9 tion, and presented more frequently with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome compared wi

10 lder than 18 years with unstable angina, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or S

11 vely enrolled 27 patients with anterior wall ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 4

12 se 2, a 49-year-old gentleman presented with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and h

13 elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), with

14 Exclusion criteria included ST segment elevation myocardial infarction within 48 h.

15 atients after cardiac arrest with or without ST-segment elevation (STE).

16 New guidelines on the management of non-ST-segment elevation ACS were published in the last 2 ye

17 syndrome (25%), which consisted of both non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (14%) and S

18 isk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) after non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS)

19 ctive invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS)

20 ecurrent ischemia only) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS).

21 s consisting of patients admitted with a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, we constru

22 A total of 8,404 patients, with or without ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, were rando

23 Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS)

24 ntithrombotic treatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes awaiting c

25 of antithrombotic drugs to patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes before cor

26 Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes include un

27 omized study involving 240 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes to compare

28 In patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, OCT-guide

29 utaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.

30 ST-segment elevation and epicardial fractionation/conduc

31 reased heart rate in 6 BrS patients, reduced ST-segment elevation and increased fractionation were ob

32 isorders with diagnostic electrocardiograms (ST-segment elevation and prolonged QT interval, respecti

33 The increase of type-1 ST-segment elevation correlated with AES expansion (r=0.

34 ization to be present is Jp >/=0.1 mV, while ST-segment elevation is not a required criterion.

35 20; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.70) in the subgroup of ST-segment elevation MI (n = 1,229), but not in non-ST-s

36 ent elevation MI (n = 1,229), but not in non-ST-segment elevation MI (p for interaction = 0.01).

37 n-hospital reperfusion rates and outcomes of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in renal transplant reci

38 ar risk of incident MI (0.8% annually), with ST-segment elevation MI constituting one-third of all ca

39 (95% CI, 98.6%-100.0%) after 1 hour for non-ST-segment elevation MI type 1.

40 20% of MI cases and presented more often as ST-segment elevation MI versus MI not related to a stent

41 care units, age 63 +/- 12 years, with large ST-segment elevation MI within 6 h of symptom onset, Thr

42 All presented with MI; 25.7% had ST-segment elevation MI, 74.3% had non-ST-segment elevat

43 % had ST-segment elevation MI, 74.3% had non-ST-segment elevation MI, and 8.9% had ventricular tachyc

44 here were 294 (20%) women, and 846 (57%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

45 elevation acute coronary syndrome (14%) and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (11%).

46 SCAD patients more frequently presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (57% vs. 36%;

47 OHCA patients presented more often with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (63.2% vs. 29

48 Findings were similar for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coeffici

49 0; 95% CI: -0.98 to 1.58; p = 0.637) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coeffici

50 without PCI or in those with a diagnosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (group by PCI

51 in CD4(+) T cells from 20 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 20

52 d clinical trial involving patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

53 r the care and outcomes of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

54 The trial included 9,326 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)/unst

55 CI: 0.62 to 0.91), and those presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (OR: 0.63, 95

56 Challenges to improving ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care

57 an alternative to mechanical reperfusion for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in se

58 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may n

59 ical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or no

60 ly IV beta-blockers before PPCI in a general ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) popul

61 Prompt reperfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) reduc

62 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remai

63 ovement in clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treat

64 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treat

65 tor antagonists are delayed in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) under

66 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were

67 In 10% to 15% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), conc

68 However, in the acute phase of an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), late

69 In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the

70 antify the edema-based area-at-risk (AAR) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

71 IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

72 nous (IV) metoprolol reduces infarct size in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

73 e epicardial and microvascular flow in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

74 risk for future cardiovascular events after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

75 imary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

76 prove the clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

77 nts standard care for treating patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

78 on myocardial infarction [STEMI] and 241 non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI] case

79 nostic coronary angiography, of whom 281 (40 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and 2

80 A total of 22 (52%) ScTs presented as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 6 (17%) a

81 Of 91,895 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 87,915 pa

82 cularization strategies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivess

83 led trials have suggested that patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivess

84 revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-se

85 on-infarct-related arteries in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction has been demo

86 ation myocardial infarction (group by PCI or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction interaction e

87 of limiting the extent of necrosis during an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is of great i

88 In multivessel non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients, com

89 ected patients presenting with suspected non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to the emerge

90 orithm for rapid rule-out and rule-in of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction using high-se

91 The prevalence of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was substanti

92 ment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were consider

93 y, Spain, and the Netherlands, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly

94 with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were abou

95 ary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) were screene

96 dial infarction and 87,915 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 88,542 (96.4

97 follow-up, and specifically in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, are scarce.

98 Tn concentrations even in the absence of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, concern has

99 entation in heart failure, presentation with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, creatinine c

100 tervention (when indicated) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, no guideline

101 neous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, we use hiera

102 or bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

103 cularization in patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

104 tion, cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

105 stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

106 ry syndromes include unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

107 omized (mean age 55+/-9 years; 75% male; 56% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 38% non-ST-s

108 ent elevation myocardial infarction; 38% non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 6% unstable

109 us Coronary Intervention on Occlusions After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; NTR1108).

110 atients, with 23% of pseudoischemic pattern (ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block).

111 10.8%] vs 90 of 1292 [7.0%]; P = .03), while ST-segment elevation was found more frequently in patien

112 A total of 1937 patients without ST-segment elevation were enrolled between July 2011 and

113 n on the basis of the presence or absence of ST-segment elevation, a century-old technology.

114 patency, the quantitative intracoronary ECG ST-segment elevation, and angina pectoris during the sam

115 al reperfusion, including the ischemic time, ST-segment elevation, angiographic blush grade, and CFR,

116 tients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation, bleeding assessed with the BARC sc

117 ation in the entire right ventricle, without ST-segment elevation, fractionation, or repolarization a

118 tients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation, with or without early invasive str

119 on, no guidelines exist for patients without ST-segment elevation.

120 The MIs included 28 (19%) with ST-segment elevation.

121 n compared with patients presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

122 tcomes by age among 76 141 patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome enrolled in

123 UTURA/OASIS-8) trial, 2026 patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome treated wit

124 bution of enrollment by age in phase III non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome trials was

125 s medical therapy alone in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing

126 the index angiogram in all patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome who underwe

127 Although the majority of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome who underwe

128 class I clinical practice guideline for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes, there is

129 riven by the high mortality rate observed in ST-segment-elevation AMI patients with detectable cytoch

130 In non-ST-segment-elevation AMI, fully implemented EHR use was

131 who underwent coronary angiography for acute ST-segment-elevation and non-ST-segment-elevation MI in

132 t-of-hospital sudden death, and hospitalized ST-segment-elevation and non-ST-segment-elevation myocar

133 S versus immediate stenting in patients with ST-segment-elevation infarction undergoing primary percu

134 ar and cerebrovascular events for those with ST-segment-elevation MI (STEMI) compared with those with

135 (ST-segment-elevation MI [STEMI] versus non-ST-segment-elevation MI [NSTEMI]) might shed light on th

136 the relationship of AF with the type of MI (ST-segment-elevation MI [STEMI] versus non-ST-segment-el

137 me course of edema reaction in patients with ST-segment-elevation MI by CMR and assessed its implicat

138 Dynamic changes in post-ST-segment-elevation MI edema highlight the need for sta

139 raphy for acute ST-segment-elevation and non-ST-segment-elevation MI in the National Cardiovascular D

140 ged alive, STEMI patients (compared with non-ST-segment-elevation MI patients) were found to have a l

141 A total of 16 patients with anterior ST-segment-elevation MI successfully treated by primary

142 R examinations were performed: patients with ST-segment-elevation MI were serially scanned (within th

143 ive cohort study in patients with reperfused ST-segment-elevation MI who underwent cardiac magnetic r

144 tals implemented with full EHRs; however, in ST-segment-elevation MI, differences in outcomes were no

145 In non-ST-segment-elevation MI, slightly lower adjusted risk of

146 bstruction follow distinct time courses post ST-segment-elevation MI.

147 tion MI (STEMI) compared with those with non-ST-segment-elevation MI.

148 rvention (MIMI) trial, patients (n=140) with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction </=12 hours w

149 nessed arrest (84.6% versus 77.4%), and have ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (32.7% versus

150 per year, a smaller proportion were PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (8.4%) than i

151 s coronary intervention in 283 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (mean+/-SD ag

152 e success of coronary reperfusion therapy in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) is commo

153 ery disease (FFR</=0.8) in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n=21) who un

154 cardial infarction (n=5996, 853 deaths), non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n=5371, 901

155 ive survival was estimated for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n=5996, 853

156 In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and

157 vation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) mana

158 % confidence interval, 2.88-7.95; P<0.0001), ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (OR, 2.10; 95

159 47 was associated inversely with smoking and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (P=0.004; odd

160 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and n

161 rtery bypass grafting (CABG) presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and u

162 imary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are s

163 Up to 50% of patients fail to meet ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) guide

164 nary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has b

165 ival for overweight and obese patients after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has b

166 In-hospital mortality of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has d

167 of persistent T2 hyperintensity after acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is un

168 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patie

169 For patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) requi

170 ogy, but data on their long-term outcomes in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) setti

171 e direct immediate intervention and therapy, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) victi

172 iated with adverse outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

173 critical in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

174 ardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

175 rognostic utility in patients after an acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

176 tal cardiac arrest patients (n=1078) without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction admitted to t

177 o determine if timing of cell delivery after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction affects recov

178 1-year cumulative survival for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction aged >/=76 ye

179 ed versus angiography-guided primary PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction among patient

180 wn to have prognostic value in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiac a

181 idities and were less likely to present with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogen

182 complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivess

183 We prospectively enrolled 49 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and performed

184 eous coronary intervention for elective, non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and ST-segmen

185 nger age categories and in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and stable an

186 ) in the United States for patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and the compa

187 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are at increa

188 Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are at increa

189 rfusion times and mortality in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are influence

190 Young women with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are less like

191 ions in time to reperfusion in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction as well as in

192 with ST between EES and BMS in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction at 5 years.

193 riage of survivors of cardiac arrest without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction at the point

194 scoring model was developed and validated on ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction cohorts from

195 A total of 40% to 50% of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction develop micro

196 Routine thrombus aspiration during PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction did not impro

197 Most patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction do not presen

198 by 9254 operators at 1538 hospitals for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction from 2009 to

199 Smoking and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction had an invers

200 reperfusion therapy for patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction have been doc

201 ive sample of patients in China admitted for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in 2001, 2006

202 cerebrovascular events within 3 years after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in patients u

203 ely 4% to 5%, a figure comparable to that of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the era of

204 left ventricular and clinical outcomes after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction independently

205 -segment-elevation myocardial infarction and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction indications i

206 rimary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction is a serious

207 Emergent CABG within 24 hours of non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction is associated

208 Contemporary ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction management in

209 ndings support efforts to implement regional ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction networks focu

210 (FDG) for glucose uptake was performed in 21 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients at a

211 patients, the healing pattern in event-free ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients diff

212 METHODS AND Consecutive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients from

213 r obstruction, which occurs in around 50% of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients post

214 sence of intramyocardial hemorrhage (IMH) in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients repe

215 phy and magnetic resonance in the reperfused ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients show

216 mplete Revascularization), we randomized 627 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients to f

217 provides better prognostic stratification of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients trea

218 METHODS AND Sixty ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients unde

219 A total of 164 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients unde

220 Forty-eight ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients unde

221 All non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients unde

222 ND In this prospective study, 88 consecutive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients were

223 The majority of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with

224 in serum levels were significantly higher in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with

225 reserve-guided complete revascularization in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with

226 METHODS AND Hospitals (n=167 with 23 498 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients) wer

227 Among 2290 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients, 36.

228 ognostic value over clinical risk factors in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

229 the area at risk delineated by T2 mapping in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

230 eventing adverse LV remodeling in reperfused ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

231 elop and validate a CMR-based risk score for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

232 Using a comprehensive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction registry, we

233 esenting with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction remains unkno

234 e analysis of bivalirudin versus UFH for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction to date, biva

235 MVO in a cohort of consecutive patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with

236 d with reduced infarct size in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pe

237 ects of NAC on infarct size in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pe

238 s immediate stenting, in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

239 In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

240 OCT-guided primary PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was associate

241 g with an acute coronary syndrome, including ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were enrolled

242 Sixty patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were included

243 Patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were prospect

244 tion) in diabetes mellitus patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who had angio

245 One hundred six patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who had been

246 cept for those (n=78, 23.6%) presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who underwent

247 ar (24.2%), but proportionally more were for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with cardioge

248 119 matched patients hospitalized for acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction without cardi

249 ting stent implantation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction would provide

250 reatment, 533 sustained ACS (excluding acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction).

251 Of 112 randomized patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, 75 (37 in NA

252 2015 included 120 cases; 75% presented with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and 80% had

253 O-PCI) in patients with multivessel disease, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and cardioge

254 coronary microcirculation in the setting of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and how they

255 ong predictor of functional improvement post ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, but recovery

256 ikely to include high-risk features, such as ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic

257 In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, immediate or

258 coronary artery disease presenting with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, only one thi

259 For patients presenting with an acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the most eff

260 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, there may be

261 ollow-up study, 181 patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, undergoing p

262 oing PCI for STEMI or other indications (non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, unstable ang

263 approach to emergency care for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

264 opulmonary resuscitation in patients without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

265 predictor of left ventricular remodeling in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

266 s among these patients in the setting of non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

267 ut-of-hospital sudden death and hospitalized ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

268 netic resonance data in patients after acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

269 ut-of-hospital sudden death and hospitalized ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

270 nd hospitalized ST-segment-elevation and non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

271 ment in predicting functional recovery after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

272 percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

273 overy of dysfunctional segments acutely post ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

274 al stents (BMS), especially in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

275 coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

276 nium enhancement 6 to 9 days after the index ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

277 ncrease in treatment times in the setting of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

278 ention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

279 prit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

280 y bypass surgery (CABG) in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

281 gnosis, particularly for older patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

282 ombus aspiration during PCI in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

283 on of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

284 assessment of myocardial injury early after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

285 thrombectomy and PCI alone in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

286 ary artery blood flow in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction; however, fai

287 versus placebo in 120 patients with anterior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarctions resulting in

288 ing analyses of patients with large anterior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarctions, bone marrow

289 iated with a reduction in infarct size after ST-segment-elevation-myocardial infarction.

290 determine the pathophysiologic basis of the ST-segment in the BrS-ECG with data from various epicard

291 interpretation, appropriate monitoring, and ST-segment monitoring when indicated), the intervention

292 ach is that it captures small changes in the ST segment over time that cannot be detected by visual i

293 ed improvements in the surrogate outcomes of ST segment resolution and distal embolisation, but wheth

294 ST-segment resolution >/=70% was found in 52.0% of CsA p

295 in the culprit artery (P=0.020), incomplete ST-segment resolution (P=0.037), and higher troponin (P=

296 The primary endpoint was incidence of >/=70% ST-segment resolution 60 min after TIMI flow grade 3.

297 This study investigated whether CsA improved ST-segment resolution in a randomized, multicenter phase

298 neous coronary intervention had no effect on ST-segment resolution or hs-cTnT, and did not improve cl

299 ion trial, the primary end point of complete ST-segment resolution was significantly improved with th

300 ial Infarction) blush grade, and no (</=30%) ST-segment resolution were not associated with these pat

301 -wave onset to R-peak, R-peak to R-wave end, ST-segment, T-wave onset to T-peak, and T-peak to T-wave