ライフサイエンスコーパス: drug-eluting stent

1 tal stent implantation and 6-12 months after drug-eluting stent.

2 antiplatelet therapy after implantation of a drug-eluting stent.

3 a stent, particularly for those receiving a drug-eluting stent.

4 ls, of whom 86% were treated with at least 1 drug-eluting stent.

5 very early after implantation of Ultimaster drug-eluting stent.

6 of conventional, non-absorbable metal-based drug-eluting stents.

7 lantation was not limited to only those with drug-eluting stents.

8 was dramatically reduced with the advent of drug-eluting stents.

9 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.

10 ble scaffolds compared with current metallic drug-eluting stents.

11 shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents.

12 did not evaluate PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents.

13 as not been systematically investigated with drug-eluting stents.

14 hs thienopyridine plus aspirin therapy after drug-eluting stents.

15 unction after implantation of bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

16 ve patients treated with unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents.

17 s in stent technology in both bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

18 lays an essential role in the performance of drug-eluting stents.

19 tically circumvent the side effects of metal drug-eluting stents.

20 G and PCI can be reduced by newer generation drug-eluting stents.

21 th status and quality of life than PCI using drug-eluting stents.

22 rcutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents.

23 ead-to-head comparisons of second-generation drug-eluting stents.

24 omplex lesions and off-label indications for drug-eluting stents.

25 nt thrombosis compared with early-generation drug-eluting stents.

26 r registry of patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stents.

27 1 year, both in patients with bare-metal and drug-eluting stents.

28 ients treated with early- and new-generation drug-eluting stents.

29 larization were lower in the group receiving drug-eluting stents.

30 ication were upregulated in the neointima of drug-eluting stents.

31 consistent among early- and newer-generation drug-eluting stents.

32 er than 1-year DAPT versus 1-year DAPT after drug-eluting stenting.

33 ,648 randomized patients (9,961 treated with drug-eluting stents, 1,687 with bare-metal stents), 30.7

34 antly lower reocclusion rate than were other drug-eluting stents (3.0% vs. 10.1%; p = 0.001).

35 were performed in 2931 lesions treated with drug-eluting stents (355 sirolimus, 846 paclitaxel, 1387

36 In the group receiving drug-eluting stents, 96% of the patients received either

37 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) according to sex and the presence/a

38 mated to describe the process used to select drug-eluting stents across the study population.

39 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) registry, which included

40 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) study was a prospective,

41 ssessment of Dual Anti-platelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) was a multicenter, prosp

42 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) was a prospective, multi

43 for release of antiproliferative drugs from drug-eluting stents aim to improve vascular healing.

44 ignificant differences were reported between drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR groups in te

45 VS implantation for the treatment of complex drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR lesions migh

46 ry outcome were 16.6% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 17.1% in the group receiving bar

47 6212 patients, 84.1% received new-generation drug-eluting stents and 19.5% received prasugrel.

48 larization were 16.5% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 19.8% in the group receiving bar

49 The use of new-generation drug-eluting stents and arterial conduits greatly improv

50 ng of elective surgery in patients with both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents.

51 Little is known about reinfarction after drug-eluting stents and bivalirudin anticoagulation.

52 PCI using drug-eluting stents and CABG are equally safe methods of

53 Although drug-eluting stents and devices for plaque modification

54 Novel devices such as drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons have improv

55 he backbone of endovascular techniques, with drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons offering lo

56 New well-tested innovations include drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons.

57 Using data from 4,190 patients treated with drug-eluting stents and enrolled in the PARIS (Patterns

58 tients successfully treated with one or more drug-eluting stents and given aspirin and clopidogrel at

59 e with early ADPri cessation, 53.9% received drug-eluting stents and had a median duration of 301 tre

60 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents and in the response to clopidogrel t

61 Although drug-eluting stents and intensive secondary prevention h

62 ed of patients enrolled in the Evaluation of Drug-Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events (EVENT) registry

63 The clinical effect of newer-generation drug-eluting stents and operative factors in complex cor

64 oing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents and platelet function testing using

65 ial comparing interventions exclusively with drug-eluting stents and surgery in patients with diabete

66 nificant differences between those receiving drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stent

67 LMCA stenosis, PCI vs CABG, exclusive use of drug-eluting stents, and clinical follow-up of 3 or more

68 ntimal proliferation in a similar fashion to drug-eluting stents, and complete bioresorption is assoc

69 ent struts were a common dominant finding in drug-eluting stents, and neoatherosclerosis was a common

70 ry intervention, history of diabetes, use of drug-eluting stents, and use of dual antiplatelet therap

71 ts undergoing graft intervention, the use of drug-eluting stents, antiplatelet agents, and embolic pr

72 Drug-eluting stents are accepted as mainstream endovascu

73 Contemporary metallic drug-eluting stents are associated with very good 1-year

74 Data on long-term outcomes of new-generation drug-eluting stents are limited, and predictors of repea

75 t therapy beyond 1 year after placement of a drug-eluting stent, as compared with aspirin therapy alo

76 own non-inferiority between BVS and metallic drug-eluting stents at 1 year in composite safety and ef

77 or the safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents at long-term follow-up, and specific

78 Substantial variability in the use of drug-eluting stents at the clinical center level was obs

79 (YUKON-Drug-Eluting Stent Below the Knee-Randomised Double-Blin

80 Compared with metallic drug-eluting stents, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (B

81 Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) were developed to be as eff

82 for at least 6 months after treatment with a drug-eluting stent by percutaneous coronary intervention

83 The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents rema

84 nal medical therapy is focused on the use of drug eluting stents, coronary-artery bypass graft surger

85 espite the introduction of antiproliferative drug-eluting stents, coronary heart disease remains the

86 er aggressive medical therapy and the use of drug-eluting stents could alter the revascularization ap

87 sis, stent age >/=48 months, all subtypes of drug-eluting stent, current smoking, chronic kidney dise

88 Most drug-eluting stents currently in use are coated with a p

89 Drug-eluting stents delivering antiproliferative agents

90 -risk surgery (DeltaRD: 3.7%; p = 0.01), and drug-eluting stent (DES) (DeltaRD: 1.3%; p = 0.01).

91 ous coronary intervention using contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with coronary artery b

92 Whether these results apply in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era is unknown.

93 lus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus BMS versus drug-eluting stent (DES) for ST-segment elevated acute m

94 s after either Absorb BVS or Xience metallic drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation (Abbott Vascular,

95 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation are unclear.

96 ciated with improved clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in an unrestricted

97 Although drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in diabetic patien

98 t therapy (DAPT) following second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is still debated.

99 on of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is unclear, and it

100 iving oral anticoagulation (OAC) who undergo drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation require additional

101 Re-endothelialization is delayed after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.

102 change the duration of clopidogrel use after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.

103 ety and effectiveness of a paclitaxel-coated drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with superficial fe

104 Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is mo

105 Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) remai

106 e whether baseline lesion complexity affects drug-eluting stent (DES) outcomes according to diabetic

107 on of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) placement remains controversial

108 The necessity of polymers on drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms is dictated by the ne

109 e limited data on comparison of contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms, previous generation

110 ation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in drug-eluting stent (DES) recipients is 12 months to redu

111 for treatment of bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosis.

112 3 and 2009 (n=2690), we identified quarterly drug-eluting stent (DES) use rates as an instrumental va

113 race/ethnicity group, we examined trends in drug-eluting stent (DES) use, 30-month outcomes, and rel

114 he relative safety and efficacy of different drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) in

115 ing stents (BES) versus durable-polymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by

116 and efficacy profiles of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); h

117 r coronary stent procedures for 1 year after drug-eluting stents (DES) and for 6 weeks after bare met

118 with bare metal stents and early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) and have not systematically ev

119 PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Drug-eluting stents (DES) are effective in reducing neoi

120 tent thrombosis (VLST) after implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are incompletely understood.

121 e aim of this study was to determine whether drug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare-metal ste

122 sorb; Abbott Vascular) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at 5 institutions.

123 Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stent

124 onse in DM and non-DM treated with different drug-eluting stents (DES) has not been systematically ev

125 Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been in clinical use for

126 Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have drastically reduced the i

127 In interventional cardiology, drug-eluting stents (DES) have shown better patency rate

128 th bare metal stents (BMS), first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have significantly reduced the

129 The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients at high risk of bl

130 been resolved about the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with acute STEMI.

131 The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with ST-segment-el

132 Drug-eluting stents (DES) might reduce the rate of targe

133 ng percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce repeat revascularizatio

134 DAPT) after implantation of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) remains uncertain.

135 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS)

136 However, data for the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS)

137 procedure performed: 956 underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES), and 894 underwent CABG.

138 anical support functions similar to metallic drug-eluting stents (DES), followed by complete bioresor

139 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), improvements driven mainly by

140 ts with DM treated with insulin who received drug-eluting stents (DES), prolonged clopidogrel treatme

141 First-generation drug-eluting stents (DES), which impart the controlled r

142 findings between bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

143 yet to be assessed versus the best-in-class drug-eluting stents (DES).

144 PCI) using either bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES).

145 (PLAD) coronary artery disease in the era of drug-eluting stents (DES).

146 rapy on endothelialization in the setting of drug-eluting stents (DES).

147 ous coronary revascularization in the era of drug-eluting stents (DES).

148 ervention (PCI) with the unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents (DES).

149 percutaneous coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents (DES-PCI)).

150 ERACI II, ARTS, SoS, MASS II) and four used drug-eluting stents (DES; FREEDOM, SYNTAX, VA CARDS, CAR

151 nary saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions with drug-eluting stents (DES; paclitaxel- or everolimus-elut

152 itus preventing the evaluation of changes in drug-eluting stent design and eluted drugs after clinica

153 The relative safety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs)

154 g balloon (DEB) was compared with everolimus drug-eluting stents (DESs) at 6-month follow-up using op

155 ical trial of 2 often-used, newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) in a broad patient population

156 and outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) remains under-reported.

157 cardiac surgery by 365 days in patients with drug-eluting stents (DESs).

158 on treated with predominantly new-generation drug-eluting stents, diabetic patients were at increased

159 fective as second-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) and as safe >1 year as bare

160 me the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus.

161 ts of late stent thrombosis in patients with drug-eluting stents, especially when dual antiplatelet t

162 anical support functions similar to metallic drug-eluting stents, followed by complete resorption wit

163 d included consecutive patients treated with drug-eluting stents for at least 1 CTO (>3 months).

164 In the era of drug-eluting stents for diffuse coronary lesions, IVUS-g

165 to be noninferior to a contemporary metallic drug-eluting stents for overall 1-year patient-oriented

166 s: HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.74-1.41; P = .89) and drug-eluting stent generation (first generation: HR, 0.9

167 Sensitivity analyses according to drug-eluting stent generation and coronary artery diseas

168 However, even the latest-generation drug-eluting stent has not managed to address all the li

169 events after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents has been incompletely characterised.

170 The development of drug-eluting stents has decreased the rate of in-stent r

171 The development of coronary drug-eluting stents has included use of new metal alloys

172 luting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large

173 Drug-eluting stents have emerged as potent weapons in th

174 The improvements in newer-generation drug-eluting stents have translated into better safety a

175 with a lower adjusted risk of death for both drug-eluting stents (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confid

176 tients with very late stent thrombosis after drug eluting stent implantation, suggesting a role of IS

177 terograde flow after CTO recanalization with drug-eluting stent implantation affects vascular functio

178 ecutive series of 377 patients who underwent drug-eluting stent implantation and had an indication fo

179 tegy Versus a Monitoring-Guided Strategy for Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation and of Treatment Interru

180 rapy (DAPT) continuation beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation as compared with 1-year

181 study of 8582 patients undergoing successful drug-eluting stent implantation at 11 centers in the Uni

182 say after clopidogrel loading and successful drug-eluting stent implantation at 11 sites in the Unite

183 The SECURITY (Second Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation Followed by Six- Versus

184 rocedural MI within 2 years after successful drug-eluting stent implantation is relatively infrequent

185 ough treatment with DAPT beyond 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation reduces myocardial infar

186 CM of coronary arteries after bare-metal and drug-eluting stent implantation, most notably an upregul

187 duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation, we avoid a common pitfa

188 ascularization during 1-year follow-up after drug-eluting stent implantation.

189 als comparing different DAPT durations after drug-eluting stent implantation.

190 clinical outcomes after successful coronary drug-eluting stent implantation.

191 -metal stent implantation or >180 days after drug-eluting stent implantation.

192 re-metal stent implantation and 1 year after drug-eluting stent implantation.

193 ") to extend dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation.

194 ve, multicenter study of patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation.

195 g outcomes 2 years after successful coronary drug-eluting stent implantation; however, these associat

196 sizing on acute and long-term outcomes after drug-eluting stents implantation in de novo coronary les

197 ts treated with clopidogrel after successful drug-eluting stents implantation, the concomitant admini

198 ts, may optimize long-term outcomes, even in drug-eluting stents implantation.

199 e underlying stent type was a new-generation drug-eluting stent in 50.3%.

200 s compared with Absorb and the Orsiro hybrid drug-eluting stent in a porcine arteriovenous shunt mode

201 The choice of drug-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with dia

202 reatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) have not be

203 , basement membrane proteins were reduced in drug-eluting stents in comparison with bare-metal stents

204 re developed to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary interventio

205 equivalent to those of conventional metallic drug-eluting stents in the early years after implantatio

206 potential advantages compared with metallic drug-eluting stents in the treatment of complex coronary

207 rison Between DES Limus Carbostent and Taxus Drug-Eluting Stents in the Treatment of De Novo Coronary

208 ncreasing number of patients with indwelling drug-eluting stents in whom the need for massive surgica

209 mode of revascularization (CABG vs. PCI with drug-eluting stents) in diabetic patients with ACS and M

210 nts undergoing PCI in whom implantation of a drug-eluting stent is contraindicated or undesirable.

211 rcutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents is as safe and effective as CABG for

212 nical evaluation of the vascular response of drug-eluting stents is limited especially in the setting

213 The role of drug-eluting stents is not yet established.

214 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is the standard of care for treatmen

215 Among the ISR lesions, the majority were drug-eluting stent ISR (78, 61.6%), de novo ISR (92, 72.

216 In drug-eluting stent ISR, balloon angioplasty was inferior

217 l drug-eluting treatments for ISR, including drug-eluting stent ISR.

218 In the era of drug-eluting stents, it is unknown if intravascular ultr

219 In the era of drug-eluting stents, large-scale randomized trials and a

220 In addition, the choice of a drug-eluting stent (limus- vs taxol-eluting) in ITDM is

221 of patients in randomized trials, but other drug-eluting stents, mainly the everolimus-eluting stent

222 Randomized trials have suggested that drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative to

223 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative.

224 Late-term thrombosis associated with drug-eluting stents may be due to the non-selective acti

225 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (n = 101) and followed for at least

226 onary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (n-DES) compared with bare-metal ste

227 h bare-metal stents (BMS) and old-generation drug-eluting stents (o-DES) enrolled in the SCAAR (Swedi

228 ndividuals aged >/=65 years receiving either drug-eluting stents or bare metal stents were included.

229 with the implantation of either contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents.

230 io [OR], 4.48; [95% CI 2.68-9.65]; P<0.001), drug-eluting stents (OR, 2.66; [95% CI, 1.38-5.16]; P=0.

231 This study determined drug-eluting stents outcomes in relation to diabetic sta

232 is of the RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Evero

233 Drug-eluting stent, particularly everolimus-eluting sten

234 (25th, 75th percentiles: 137, 353); 33.3% of drug-eluting stent patients stopped treatment within 6 m

235 or bare-metal stent placement compared with drug-eluting stent placement (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.61-3.9

236 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent placement has not been prospectively

237 l antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after coronary drug-eluting stent placement remains uncertain.

238 bypass surgery and the newest generation of drug-eluting stent platforms offer no definitive benefit

239 estinal bleeding (GIB) in the current era of drug-eluting stents, prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy

240 Drug-eluting stents reduce the incidence of in-stent res

241 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) registry.

242 Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-elut

243 ed noninferiority of a novel ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegrada

244 Early-generation drug-eluting stents releasing sirolimus (SES) or paclita

245 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains controversial.

246 antiplatelet therapy with specific types of drug-eluting stents remains unknown.

247 Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among

248 s with high scores treated with contemporary drug-eluting stents requires further study.

249 authors randomly assigned 110 patients with drug-eluting stent restenoses located in a native corona

250 Conversely, new-generation drug-eluting stent showed similar safety as bare-metal s

251 cies in a registry of 66 cases with definite drug-eluting stent ST versus an ST-free control cohort (

252 substantially reduced with newer-generation drug-eluting stent, still remains.

253 Real-World Endeavor Resolute Versus Xience V Drug-Eluting Stent Study in Twente) trial is an investig

254 TE (Real-World Endeavor Resolute vs Xience V Drug-Eluting Stent Study in Twente) trial is an investig

255 Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents study.

256 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) study was used to determine the inc

257 ter successful chronic total occlusion (CTO) drug-eluting stent-supported percutaneous coronary inter

258 Emerging drug-eluting stent technologies are evolving toward the

259 a new direction in improving next generation drug-eluting stent technology.

260 a side branch; it is more commonly found in drug-eluting stents than bare-metal stents.

261 Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolim

262 ority trial-compared 2 biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents: the thin-strut cobalt-chromium siro

263 donor-coated stents, and a new generation of drug-eluting stents, therefore address persistent oxidat

264 Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy with Drug-Eluting Stents], THIN [The Health Improvement Netwo

265 At the same time, drug-eluting stent thrombosis emerged as a major concern

266 atient, for example, by targeting the use of drug-eluting stent to high-risk patients, with the goal

267 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents to contemporaneous patients within t

268 risk-benefit ratio of PPIs in patients with drug-eluting stents treated with clopidogrel.

269 Diabetic patients with contraindication to a drug-eluting stent, undergoing PCI with a BMS, were rand

270 .7+/-1.1 versus 1.6+/-0.9), and frequency of drug-eluting stent usage (52% versus 60%).

271 Drug-eluting stent use increased during the study period

272 f contemporary data on the second-generation drug-eluting stent use within SVG, and the relative impo

273 ess the vessel-healing pattern of Ultimaster drug-eluting stent using optical frequency domain imagin

274 (TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

275 tes, 3-vessel disease, or high SYNTAX (TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

276 ble on the long-term effects of contemporary drug-eluting stents versus contemporary bare-metal stent

277 Patients receiving drug-eluting stents (versus bare-metal stents) had a low

278 To compare the long-term safety of PCI with drug-eluting stent vs CABG in patients with LMCA stenosi

279 ed >12 months before surgery, old-generation drug-eluting stent was associated with higher risk of ev

280 ergone a coronary stent procedure in which a drug-eluting stent was placed.

281 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) was a large-scale, prospective, mul

282 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) was a prospective, multicenter regi

283 tive patients with ULM stenosis treated with drug-eluting stent were included in this analysis.

284 First-generation drug-eluting stents were associated with higher rate of

285 Bare-metal and drug-eluting stents were implanted in pig coronary arter

286 s underwent single-vessel stenting, and only drug-eluting stents were implanted.

287 an angiography-guided approach in the era of drug-eluting stents were included.

288 patients, trial patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents were similar with respect to race, s

289 A total of 38 early- and 20 newer-generation drug-eluting stents were suitable for analysis.

290 t in 1310 patients (22%), and new-generation drug-eluting stents were used in 4554 patients (75%).

291 Assessment of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy With Drug-Eluting Stents) were stratified according to whethe

292 g artery alongside the good patency rates of drug-eluting stents, which outlive saphenous vein grafts

293 th use of BMS have led to the development of drug-eluting stents, which require prolonged dual antipl

294 ome of the well-known limitations of current drug-eluting stents, while providing a transient scaffol

295 on With OFDI of Strut Coverage of Terumo New Drug Eluting Stent With Biodegradable Polymer at 1, 2, a

296 MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coati

297 Coronary drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have bee

298 rates of 27% in bare metal stents and 0% in drug-eluting stents, with mean diameter in-stent resteno

299 ain whether BVS are as safe and effective as drug-eluting stents within 2 years after implantation an

300 t these devices are as safe and effective as drug-eluting stents within the first year after implanta