ライフサイエンスコーパス: bare metal stent

1 (4016 with drug-eluting stents and 3201 with bare-metal stents).

2 osition) in the FP-PES compared with PES and bare metal stent.

3 d comparable to that in patients receiving a bare metal stent.

4 nts with diabetes mellitus (DM) treated with bare-metal stent.

5 apy for the treatment of restenosis within a bare-metal stent.

6 utcomes, and relative outcomes of DES versus bare metal stents.

7 panics, who had similar outcomes with DES or bare metal stents.

8 n patients with both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents.

9 rug-eluting stents and 861 who received only bare metal stents.

10 ly reduced by RSG in SESs but not in PESs or bare metal stents.

11 epared on both MP35N metal alloy coupons and bare metal stents.

12 complication of both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents.

13 e put into context with the IVUS findings in bare metal stents.

14 rosclerosis was a common dominant finding in bare metal stents.

15 Guard was consistent with that expected from bare metal stents.

16 metallic biolimus-eluting stents and control bare metal stents.

17 eluting compared with everolimus-eluting and bare metal stents.

18 nt compared with both everolimus-eluting and bare metal stents.

19 ry was delayed in patients with DESs but not bare metal stents.

20 ]; P<0.001) were higher in DES compared with bare-metal stents.

21 42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.19; P = .10) treated with bare-metal stents.

22 Drug Administration-approved drug-eluting or bare-metal stents.

23 eluting stents compared with those receiving bare-metal stents.

24 ed in drug-eluting stents in comparison with bare-metal stents.

25 ath or ST-elevation myocardial infarction to bare-metal stents.

26 drug-eluting stents, and 6461 received only bare-metal stents.

27 evascularization at 1 year, as compared with bare-metal stents.

28 n procedures as compared with treatment with bare-metal stents.

29 d ability to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents.

30 months after stent implantation, similar to bare-metal stents.

31 atelet therapy longer than is necessary with bare-metal stents.

32 oups with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents.

33 arget vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents.

34 itaxel-eluting stents, and 2267 treated with bare-metal stents.

35 ents and paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents.

36 ns were stented with standard 10-mm-diameter bare-metal stents.

37 gned to paclitaxel-eluting stents and 213 to bare-metal stents.

38 f either contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents.

39 atients without DM or in any group receiving bare-metal stents.

40 e commonly found in drug-eluting stents than bare-metal stents.

41 l myocardial infarction in DES compared with bare-metal stents.

42 HR 0.82, p=0.019), and in patients with only bare-metal stents (10.0 vs 12.2%, HR 0.80, p=0.003).

43 wer with paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents (10.0% vs. 22.9%; hazard ratio, 0.44;

44 expanding covered stent grafts compared with bare-metal stents (10.6% versus 3.4%; P=0.02).

45 (6178 coronary artery bypass grafting, 5011 bare metal stents, 11 844 DES) from 2004 to 2009.

46 ared with PES (10.95 mm(2) [9.64-12.46]) and bare metal stent (13.83 mm(2) [11.53-17.03]; P<0.001).

47 for the competing risk of death was 18% with bare metal stents, 19% with DES, and 6% with coronary ar

48 n old balloon angioplasty (341% increase) to bare metal stent (218% increase) to paclitaxel-eluting s

49 Compared with 749 patients who received a bare-metal stent, 2257 patients who received a paclitaxe

50 rachytherapy, -23.4% (-36.2 to -10.8) versus bare metal stents, -24.2% (-32.2 to -16.4) versus balloo

51 of AF were more likely to be treated with a bare-metal stent (27% vs. 18%).

52 1 LIMA anastomotic stenosis (3.7%), 3 after bare metal stent (30%), and 4 after drug-eluting stent p

53 treated with drug-eluting stents, 1,687 with bare-metal stents), 30.7% presented with MI.

54 ant difference in ST between drug-coated and bare-metal stents (4.4% versus 3.4%; P=0.55), but the ra

55 clitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent or an identical bare-metal stent; 536 (41%) randomized patients had LAD

56 enosis (62%), was more prevalent in DES than bare-metal stents (68% versus 36%; P=0.02), and demonstr

57 compared with PES (54.16% [42.60-61.97]) and bare metal stent (74.52% [47.23-100.00]; P<0.001).

58 tents (2257 patients) or otherwise identical bare-metal stents (749 patients).

59 Overlapping bare metal stents also showed mild delayed healing compa

60 al infarction rates compared with the use of bare metal stents among all race/ethnicity groups except

61 were lower for drug-eluting stents than for bare-metal stents among all patients with myocardial inf

62 enoses, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent resteno

63 s revealed binary restenosis rates of 27% in bare metal stents and 0% in drug-eluting stents, with me

64 atients receiving drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents and bivalirudin alone versus heparin p

65 osis (ST) have included mostly patients with bare metal stents and early-generation drug-eluting sten

66 METHODS AND Animals receiving SESs, PESs, or bare metal stents and either RSG (3 mg/kg per day) or pl

67 e similar after excluding patients receiving bare metal stents and using an alternative MACE definiti

68 went percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stenting and met our study criteria.

69 l use occurred in 54.7% of all patients with bare-metal stents and 48.7% of patients with drug-elutin

70 o receive either sirolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and five double-blind trials in which

71 ys were assessed in rabbits receiving ZES or bare-metal stents and Mf or placebo by scanning electron

72 hey were treated with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and whether use was standard or off-la

73 atment for CoA, including angioplasty alone, bare metal stenting, and primary covered stent therapy.

74 m outcomes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents, and most are relatively small randomi

75 eous revascularization with drug-eluting and bare metal stents associates with a high risk of in-sten

76 d quercetin (Q)-eluting stent with that of a bare metal stent (BMS) on neointimal hyperplasia and re-

77 outflow tract obstruction is possible with a bare metal stent (BMS), although this treatment causes p

78 drug with superior performance to a clinical bare metal stent (BMS).

79 ith artery wall healing in comparison with a bare metal stent (BMS).

80 transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and bail-out bare metal stenting (BMS) is hampered by restenosis.

81 , 16.3] to 7.7 [5.4, 9.9], P<0.0001), behind bare metal stents (BMS) (18.5 [13.2, 23.8] to 12.0 [6.7,

82 (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) has not been studied in the kidn

83 y of different drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elev

84 luting stents (PES) and otherwise equivalent bare metal stents (BMS) in ST-segment elevation myocardi

85 Drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents (BMS) may increase late stent thrombos

86 ct of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) on distal vessels in the serial

87 o estimate the relative impact of DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) on safety and efficacy end point

88 uting stent resolute), against each other or bare metal stents (BMS), and enrolling >/= 50 patients w

89 Compared with bare metal stents (BMS), first-generation drug-eluting s

90 nary drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS), the relative risk of stent thro

91 arget vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents (BMS).

92 e scaffolds were assessed in comparison with bare metal stents (BMS).

93 S paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or EXPRESS bare metal stents (BMS).

94 g-eluting stents (DES) and for 6 weeks after bare metal stents (BMS).

95 Four of the RCTs used bare metal stents (BMS; ERACI II, ARTS, SoS, MASS II) an

96 ncoated balloon angioplasty for treatment of bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) rest

97 t therapy is safer and more effective than a bare-metal stent (BMS) for patients with high risk of bl

98 paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and a similar bare-metal stent (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) les

99 cluding diabetic patients, especially when a bare-metal stent (BMS) is used.

100 ansluminal angioplasty (PTA) and provisional bare-metal stent (BMS) placement.

101 Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus bare-metal stent (BMS) randomized trials.

102 treated with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) plus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus BMS versus drug-eluting st

103 ive randomized comparisons of the SES to the bare-metal stent (BMS), and two were prospective non-ran

104 ouble-blind, randomized trials of PES versus bare-metal stents (BMS) (n = 3,513).

105 ith improved clinical outcomes compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) among a nationally representativ

106 tiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) among patients >/=85 years of ag

107 erm efficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less

108 Late-acquired ISA has been reported in bare-metal stents (BMS) and brachytherapy and recently i

109 long-term clinical outcomes differed between bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) by

110 Human coronary bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) fr

111 sponses at bifurcation after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

112 s with VLST and compare the findings between bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

113 on drug-eluting stents (n-DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and old-generation drug-eluting

114 ion with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) and to formally evaluate the inc

115 e-polymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by means of a network meta-analy

116 DES) platforms, previous generation DES, and bare-metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary interv

117 tcomes between drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) for STEMI.

118 The introduction of bare-metal stents (BMS) has represented a major advancem

119 differences in outcome after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS) have been described, there are n

120 ompared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with

121 eluting stents has prompted increased use of bare-metal stents (BMS) in current practice.

122 ety of drug-eluting stents (DES) relative to bare-metal stents (BMS) in DM is uncertain.

123 t their long-term safety relative to that of bare-metal stents (BMS) in general use remains uncertain

124 nts has equal risks but higher efficacy than bare-metal stents (BMS) in long femoropopliteal artery d

125 er drug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare-metal stents (BMS) in octogenarian patients with an

126 y of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in older patients with chronic k

127 vessel revascularization in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with chronic kidney

128 tiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in SVG-PCI are unclear.

129 imus-eluting stents (SES) in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) in treatment of focal infrapopli

130 olimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

131 rial comparing DEB with EES in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

132 ous coronary intervention (PCI) using either bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES).

133 th a unique drug fast-release profile versus bare-metal stents (BMS) under similar durations of dual-

134 ortality among drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) while adjusting for many confoun

135 luminal balloon coronary angioplasty (PTCA), bare-metal stents (BMS), and drug-eluting stents (DES) s

136 duce repeat revascularizations compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), but their effects on death and

137 d for repeat revascularization compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), data suggest the window of thro

138 ed with higher rate of late ST compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), especially in patients with ST-

139 ry intervention to SVG in patients receiving bare-metal stents (BMS), first-generation DES, and newer

140 slates into superior outcomes, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), for the full spectrum of patien

141 data on the restenosis benefit of DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the incremental risk of stent t

142 of ST with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the timing of the event, clinic

143 stents (DES) reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), virtually all of these studies

144 ion to paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or to bare-metal stents (BMS).

145 outcomes (at 9 and 12 months) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS).

146 uals receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS).

147 label") with a comparable group treated with bare-metal stents (BMS).

148 outcomes (at 9 and 12 months) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS).

149 paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared to bare-metal stents (BMS).

150 uting stents (DP-DES) and as safe >1 year as bare-metal stents (BMS).

151 erent types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in t

152 and neointimal proliferation of a therapy of bare metal stents (BMSs) postdilated with the paclitaxel

153 ng biolimus from a biodegradable polymer and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in the COMFORTABLE trial (Compa

154 ive safety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) with respect to stent thrombosi

155 dom from myocardial infarction compared with bare metal stents, but increase the risk of stent thromb

156 uting stents reduce restenosis compared with bare metal stents, but there is growing concern that dru

157 -eluting stents was examined in rabbits with bare metal stents, BxVelocity or Express, serving as con

158 ificantly different in patients treated with bare metal stents compared with drug-eluting stents (1.4

159 ent-graft implantation and/or placement of a bare metal stent, complications, and follow-up images we

160 g stents reduce restenosis rates relative to bare-metal stents, concerns have been raised that drug-e

161 used to characterize NA in 65 (51 DES and 14 bare-metal stents) consecutive symptomatic patients with

162 (n=12) and PES (n=12) was compared against a bare metal stent control (n=12; Innova, Boston Scientifi

163 The MGuard, a bare metal stent covered with a polymer mesh, was design

164 abetes mellitus, stent type (drug-eluting or bare metal stent), CYP2C19 genetic status, loading dose

165 ed a drug-eluting stent and 38.5% received a bare-metal stent (drug-eluting stent era cohort).

166 Compared with bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents further delay art

167 amined the effects of RSG on SESs, PESs, and bare metal stents endothelialization.

168 when only bare-metal stents were available (bare-metal stent era cohort) and 28,086 similar patients

169 ty era), group 2 (early stent era), group 3 (bare-metal stent era), and group 4 (drug-eluting stent e

170 Relative to the bare-metal stent era, patients treated in the drug-eluti

171 Studies from the balloon angioplasty and bare metal stent eras have demonstrated that coronary ar

172 For bare metal stent, first-generation DES and second-genera

173 us coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatel

174 rovides better clinical outcomes compared to bare-metal stenting for ULMCA disease, there is a paucit

175 that these stents are superior to thin-strut bare-metal stents for preventing repeat revascularizatio

176 een shown to be cost-effective compared with bare-metal stents for select clinical trial patients, wh

177 care system receiving either drug-eluting or bare metal stents from 2002 to 2006.

178 % confidence interval 0.22 to 0.95]) and the bare-metal stent group (0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.

179 n the Taxus group and 0.76% +/- 0.23% in the bare-metal stent group at 3 years (hazard ratio 1.51 [95

180 the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.20) and 1.3% in the paclitax

181 the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.20; 95% confidence interval

182 he paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.8% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.24; 95% CI, -0.3 to 1.4).

183 he paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.9% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.30).

184 he paclitaxel-stent group versus 1.4% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.52; 95% CI, -0.7 to 1.4).

185 the sirolimus-stent group versus 1.7% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.70; 95% CI, -1.5 to 1.0) and

186 ent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage

187 tent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage

188 the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.4% in the bare-metal-stent group and 0.9% in the paclitaxel-stent

189 he paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group.

190 paclitaxel-stent group, as compared with the bare-metal-stent groups.

191 drug-eluting stent showed similar safety as bare-metal stent >12 months and between 6 and 12 months

192 itaxel-eluting stents and those treated with bare-metal stents had similar 12-month rates of death (3

193 tients receiving drug-eluting stents (versus bare-metal stents) had a lower 30-month mortality (IPW H

194 stents, as compared with those who received bare-metal stents, had significantly lower 12-month rate

195 pending upon whether a drug-eluting stent or bare-metal stent has been implanted.

196 rials of approved drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents have shown additional cases of late st

197 -stent restenosis in the cohort treated with bare-metal stents (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.03 [95% confide

198 ble polymer and 49 patients (8.7%) receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30

199 ting stents and 19.8% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0

200 ting stents and 17.1% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence in

201 dence interval [CI], 0.61, 0.82; P<0.01) and bare metal stents (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76, 0.96; P=0.01)

202 (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64, 0.84) compared with bare metal stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79, 0.98; interac

203 ould be postponed for at least 4 weeks after bare metal stent implantation and 6-12 months after drug

204 xel-eluting stent implantation compared with bare metal stent implantation was modified by angiograph

205 surgery be delayed until 30 to 45 days after bare-metal stent implantation and 1 year after drug-elut

206 for elective surgery is 46 to 180 days after bare-metal stent implantation or >180 days after drug-el

207 r drug-eluting stent placement compared with bare-metal stent implantation remain unsettled, with con

208 ly approved therapy for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation, drug-eluting stents are n

209 Compared to bare-metal stents, implantation of polymer-based, paclit

210 In comparison with bare-metal stent implanted >12 months before surgery, ol

211 imus A9 Drug Coated Stent Versus the Gazelle Bare Metal Stent in Patients With High Risk of Bleeding

212 Clinical presentation of bare metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients u

213 pping 3.0-mm-diameter drug-eluting stents or bare metal stents in 60 animals (mean length of overlap,

214 s Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infar

215 s for considering drug-eluting as opposed to bare metal stents in PCI.

216 relative risks of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in specific high-risk groups require f

217 arget vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents in the extremely elderly.

218 g drug-eluting stent performance relative to bare metal stents in the setting of acute myocardial inf

219 ed the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleedin

220 use of drug-eluting stents as compared with bare-metal stents in all groups.

221 h balloon angioplasty in six trials and with bare-metal stents in four trials.

222 , paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent compared to bare-metal stents in patients undergoing elective corona

223 ents with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents in randomized clinical trials, althoug

224 ving drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents in the composite outcome of death from

225 ing stents may have clinical advantages over bare-metal stents in the extremely proliferative environ

226 acy of drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, in patients with ST-segment elevation

227 In 46 trials of drug-eluting and bare-metal stenting, increasing mean late loss was assoc

228 Restenosis within bare-metal stents is often treated with repeat percutane

229 level data to compare the efficacy of EES in bare-metal stent ISR and DES-ISR.

230 were reported between drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR groups in terms of device-oriented

231 treatment of complex drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR lesions might be associated with ac

232 Results of 94 patients treated with EES for bare-metal stent ISR were compared with those of 155 pat

233 more challenging than that of patients with bare-metal stent ISR.

234 in patients with DES-ISR than in those with bare-metal stent ISR.

235 sis (n=55) or in-stent restenosis (ISR) of a bare metal stent (n=34).

236 s (1077 ISR lesions) distributed as follows: bare metal stent (n=388), first-generation DES (n=425),

237 the biolimus-eluting stent (n = 575) or the bare-metal stent (n = 582).

238 reatment with paclitaxel DEB and provisional bare-metal stenting (n = 90) or PES implantation (n = 92

239 therosclerosis (n =10) or implanted coronary bare-metal stents (n = 10, 3.5-mm diameter, day 7 post-i

240 drug-eluting stents (n=46) and patients with bare-metal stents (n=24).

241 ing the benefits of drug-eluting stents over bare-metal stents observed in randomized clinical trials

242 rary drug-eluting stents versus contemporary bare-metal stents on rates of death, myocardial infarcti

243 2.31%, HR 0.36, p<0.0001), and in those with bare-metal stents only (1.27 vs 2.41%, HR 0.52, p=0.0009

244 eiving RSG compared to RSG animals receiving bare metal stent or PESs.

245 oons, in patients presenting with ISR within bare-metal stents or DES.

246 were 4.4% with both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents (P=0.98) and 4.3% versus 4.6% in patie

247 7.9% with the TAXUS stent and 18.6% with the bare-metal stent (p = 0.009).

248 -eluting stents versus none in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.025) and nine episodes in patient

249 l-eluting stents versus two in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.028).

250 changes were not significant (DES, P=0.086; bare-metal stent, P=0.296).

251 Stent) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everoli

252 tment within 6 months compared with 64.2% of bare metal stent patients.

253 eriod, there was no change in the percent of bare-metal stent patients reporting clopidogrel use at 6

254 As compared with patients with bare-metal stents, patients with drug-eluting stents had

255 404 days (P < .001) and decreased following bare metal stent placement from 402 to 309 days (P < .00

256 In contrast, MACE rates with bare metal stent placement increased from 4.3% in 2005 t

257 0% to 13% after angioplasty, 0% to 5% after bare metal stent placement, and <1% after covered stent

258 wed DES placement, and 5608 (33.7%) followed bare metal stent placement.

259 o everolimus-eluting, sirolimus-eluting, and bare metal stent placement.

260 se mortality included balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stent placement compared with drug-eluting st

261 Between 1992 and 2010, 27 patients underwent bare-metal stent placement in the ventricular septum or

262 raphy, fractional flow reserve measurements, bare-metal stents, postprocedural medications, and radia

263 h diabetes, the TAXUS stent, compared to the bare-metal stent, reduced the rate of 9-month binary ang

264 safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with

265 Treatment of bare metal stent restenosis using PEB led to significant

266 mus-eluting stents (EES) in the treatment of bare metal stent restenosis.

267 ated with favorable results for treatment of bare-metal stent restenosis.

268 ns of balloon angioplasty or with the use of bare-metal stents, results in greater relief from angina

269 ty rates were 14.5% for DES versus 23.0% for bare metal stents (risk difference, -8.5%; P<0.001), an

270 Only bare metal stents showed complete re-endothelialization

271 paclitaxel-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, significantly reduced angiographic ev

272 With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be

273 limitations of plain balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents, some limitations apply, most notably

274 1 to receive a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a bare metal stent (stent randomisation; stratified by pha

275 e Initial Double-Blind Drug-Eluting Stent vs Bare-Metal Stent Study, NCT00233805; The Study of the BX

276 Compared with a bare-metal stent, the use of biolimus-eluting stents wit

277 effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents, the evidence seems to suggest that th

278 DES use decreased by 41% and bare metal stent use increased by 85% from 2006 to 2007.

279 Compared with bare metal stent use, DES use was generally associated w

280 Relative to bare metal stent use, drug-eluting stent use was associa

281 usted differences in outcomes for DES versus bare metal stents using a 2-stage least squares instrume

282 erval was 45 to 180 days, the event rate for bare-metal stents was 2.6%, approaching that of intermed

283 When the class of bare-metal stents was compared with the class of effecti

284 ceived a balanced mixture of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents was not significantly more effective t

285 receive either paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents; we then analyzed the major clinical e

286 When bare metal stents were deployed in malapposed or overlap

287 ears receiving either drug-eluting stents or bare metal stents were included.

288 IIa inhibitor and use of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents were not significant predictors of rei

289 om October 2002 through March 2003 when only bare-metal stents were available (bare-metal stent era c

290 revascularization) with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents were compared using inverse probabilit

291 When the individual drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents were compared, late loss was a better

292 ving drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents were determined from vital-statistics

293 covered stents, and 11.2% balloon expandable bare metal stents) were placed in 692 renal arteries, 15

294 Ten patients (37%) were treated with bare metal stents, whereas 17 patients (63%) were treate

295 Many people will do well with a bare-metal stent, whereas for individuals with a high li

296 g-eluting stents as compared with those with bare-metal stents, whereas the risk of repeat revascular

297 entional cardiologists have quickly replaced bare metal stents with intravascular drug-eluting stents

298 ee umirolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and

299 e patients randomized to drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents with successful stenting documented by

300 Whether the use of bare-metal stents would yield different results is unkno