ライフサイエンスコーパス: disabling stroke

1 ess, Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, and disabling stroke.

2 is a wasted opportunity to prevent recurrent disabling stroke.

3 respect to the primary end point of death or disabling stroke.

4 iveness, for patients and caregivers after a disabling stroke.

5 al stroke, and 37 versus 84 others had a non-disabling stroke.

6 or reinfarction; and death, reinfarction or disabling stroke.

7 hagic stroke and result in a similar rate of disabling stroke.

8 .53, 1.02-2.31, p=0.04), but were mainly non-disabling strokes.

9 was associated with low mortality (2.1%), no disabling stroke (0.0%), and fully percutaneous access a

10 e no differences in 30-day mortality (1.3%), disabling stroke (0.8%), or readmission (10.7%).

11 2.76, 95% CI 1.17-6.51; p=0.021; HR for non-disabling stroke 3.00, 1.10-8.36; p=0.031), but we did n

12 The number of fatal or disabling strokes (52 vs 49) and cumulative 5-year risk

13 stroke 2.98, 1.29-6.93; p=0.011; HR for non-disabling stroke 6.34, 1.45-27.71; p=0.014), but there w

14 Disabling stroke and myocardial infarction occurred in 2

15 nd point was, at 2 years, survival free from disabling stroke and reoperation to repair or replace th

16 point - a composite of death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization

17 had similar rate of the composite of death, disabling stroke, and myocardial infarction when compare

18 infarction [MI], emergency bypass procedure, disabling stroke, and target lesion revascularization).

19 term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterec

20 rimary end point was death from any cause or disabling stroke at 2 years.

21 t was a composite of death from any cause or disabling stroke at 24 months in patients undergoing att

22 The rates of disabling stroke at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.005) a

23 en target-vessel revascularization (TVR), or disabling stroke at 30 days (4.6% versus 7.0%; relative

24 sent in the rates of death, reinfarction, or disabling stroke between the two groups.

25 n-group differences in the rates of death or disabling stroke, but reoperation for pump malfunction w

26 for the major end points of 30-day death or disabling stroke; death or reinfarction; and death, rein

27 5% in the transfemoral access subgroup), and disabling strokes had occurred in 24 (2%), aortic valve

28 The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke in any territory after randomisation to

29 of the trial is the 3-year rate of fatal or disabling stroke in any territory, which has not been an

30 We recruited patients with potentially disabling stroke in three stroke centres, performed magn

31 e of survival free of disabling stroke (with disabling stroke indicated by a modified Rankin score >3

32 ke is lower than in high-income regions, but disabling stroke is as prevalent.

33 The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), intracrani

34 ty (Lotus, 1.9%; ES3, 1.8%; P=0.87), rate of disabling stroke (Lotus, 1.5%; ES3, 2.1%; P=0.62), or ma

35 Disabling stroke, myocardial infarction, and life-threat

36 8], p<0.0001), 3.5% versus 6.1% for fatal or disabling strokes (net gain 2.5% [0.8-4.3], p=0.004), an

37 All-cause mortality was 1.9%, and disabling stroke occurred in 1.8% at 30 days.

38 At 30 days, mortality was 1%, disabling stroke occurred in 2.5% of patients, and New Y

39 oint of 30-day mortality, re-infarction, and disabling stroke occurred in 27 (5%) on-site PA patients

40 y was observed, although a small increase in disabling stroke occurred.

41 re 34 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 4.0%) events of disabling stroke or death in the stenting group compared

42 flow LVAD with respect to survival free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or fa

43 end point was survival at 2 years free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or fa

44 trial primary end point (survival free of a disabling stroke or reoperation to replace the pump for

45 ed primary end point of death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, or target-vessel revascularization bec

46 ite adverse event rate (death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, or TVR) was greater after optimal PTCA

47 The 30-day mortality was 14%, with no disabling strokes, or repeat interventions.

48 hin 30 days was 3.0% (95% CI 2.4-3.9; 26 non-disabling strokes plus 34 disabling or fatal perioperati

49 There were no significant differences for disabling stroke (S3 1.3% versus XT 3.1%, P=0.29) and al

50 t, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of death or disabling stroke than surgery (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% C

51 ccurred 55 months after surgery, and one non-disabling stroke three months after surgery.

52 the mortality rate was 4.2%, and the rate of disabling stroke was 1.7%; 1 (1.0%) patient had moderate

53 The 90-day risk of fatal or disabling stroke was reduced in phase 2 (1 of 281 vs 16

54 The rate of death from any cause or disabling stroke was similar in the TAVR group and the s

55 d acute events, and long-term care following disabling stroke were presented in 2015 U.S. dollars.

56 es of intracranial haemorrhage and non-fatal disabling stroke were similar.

57 nd point was a composite of survival free of disabling stroke (with disabling stroke indicated by a m

58 Primary end point was all-cause mortality or disabling stroke within 12 months.