ライフサイエンスコーパス: ST segment elevation

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

2 n with fractionated electrograms, as well as ST-segment elevation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 Non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome patients un

23 relationship between ACT and outcomes in non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome patients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 dy surface mapping showed that the area with ST-segment elevation anatomically correlated with the ar

33 ST-segment elevation and epicardial fractionation/conduc

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

35 parison with healthy controls; P<0.005): (1) ST-segment elevation and inverted T wave of unipolar ele

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46 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

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

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

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

50 (95% CI, 98.6%-100.0%) after 1 hour for non-ST-segment elevation MI type 1.

51 20% of MI cases and presented more often as ST-segment elevation MI versus MI not related to a stent

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

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

54 % had ST-segment elevation MI, 74.3% had non-ST-segment elevation MI, and 8.9% had ventricular tachyc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

79 0; 95% CI: -0.98 to 1.58; p = 0.637) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coeffici

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

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

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

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

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

85 In multivariable analyses, presentation with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (odds ratio 2

86 % confidence interval: 2.92 to 3.06) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (odds ratio:

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

88 Older women presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are l

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

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

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

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

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

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

95 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 who have multivessel disease presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

154 % confidence interval, 2.88-7.95; P<0.0001), ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (OR, 2.10; 95

155 47 was associated inversely with smoking and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (P=0.004; odd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

174 1-year cumulative survival for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction aged >/=76 ye

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

199 -hospital cardiac arrest in patients without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the Copenh

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

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

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

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

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

205 Contemporary ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction management in

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

207 also common in matched control subjects with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction not having ha

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

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

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

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

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

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

214 ses were searched for trials that randomized ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients to a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

230 stdischarge treatment of unstable angina/non-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 FFR in patients with recent non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction showed high c

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

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

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

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

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

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

241 ed peritoneal lavage system in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

250 119 matched patients hospitalized for acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction without cardi

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

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

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

254 2015 included 120 cases; 75% presented with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and 80% had

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

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

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

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

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

260 June 2010 and September 2011 in Ontario for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, including ti

261 In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, morphine use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

285 during percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

297 ith acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207)

298 10.8%] vs 90 of 1292 [7.0%]; P = .03), while ST-segment elevation was found more frequently in patien

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

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