コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 with drug-eluting stents and 3201 with bare-metal stents).
2 on) in the FP-PES compared with PES and bare metal stent.
3 parable to that in patients receiving a bare metal stent.
4 ith diabetes mellitus (DM) treated with bare-metal stent.
5 s delayed in patients with DESs but not bare metal stents.
6 cardial infarction in DES compared with bare-metal stents.
7 es, and relative outcomes of DES versus bare metal stents.
8 0.001) were higher in DES compared with bare-metal stents.
9 s, who had similar outcomes with DES or bare metal stents.
10 ients with both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents.
11 5% CI, 0.15-1.19; P = .10) treated with bare-metal stents.
12 Administration-approved drug-eluting or bare-metal stents.
13 ng stents compared with those receiving bare-metal stents.
14 luting stents and 861 who received only bare metal stents.
15 duced by RSG in SESs but not in PESs or bare metal stents.
16 , particularly in the area of self-expanding metal stents.
17 drug-eluting stents in comparison with bare-metal stents.
18 r ST-elevation myocardial infarction to bare-metal stents.
19 d on both MP35N metal alloy coupons and bare metal stents.
20 -eluting stents, and 6461 received only bare-metal stents.
21 ularization at 1 year, as compared with bare-metal stents.
22 cedures as compared with treatment with bare-metal stents.
23 lity to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents.
24 hs after stent implantation, similar to bare-metal stents.
25 tic stent to be comparable to self-expanding metal stents.
26 t therapy longer than is necessary with bare-metal stents.
27 with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents.
28 vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents.
29 ication of both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents.
30 l-eluting stents, and 2267 treated with bare-metal stents.
31 and paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents.
32 erosis was a common dominant finding in bare metal stents.
33 her contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents.
34 was consistent with that expected from bare metal stents.
35 lic biolimus-eluting stents and control bare metal stents.
36 ts without DM or in any group receiving bare-metal stents.
37 ng compared with everolimus-eluting and bare metal stents.
38 mpared with both everolimus-eluting and bare metal stents.
39 monly found in drug-eluting stents than bare-metal stents.
41 ith paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents (10.0% vs. 22.9%; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% C
45 he competing risk of death was 18% with bare metal stents, 19% with DES, and 6% with coronary artery
46 balloon angioplasty (341% increase) to bare metal stent (218% increase) to paclitaxel-eluting stent
47 mpared with 749 patients who received a bare-metal stent, 2257 patients who received a paclitaxel-elu
48 therapy, -23.4% (-36.2 to -10.8) versus bare metal stents, -24.2% (-32.2 to -16.4) versus balloon ang
51 ifference in ST between drug-coated and bare-metal stents (4.4% versus 3.4%; P=0.55), but the rate of
52 s (62%), was more prevalent in DES than bare-metal stents (68% versus 36%; P=0.02), and demonstrated
55 lower for drug-eluting stents than for bare-metal stents among all patients with myocardial infarcti
56 farction rates compared with the use of bare metal stents among all race/ethnicity groups except Hisp
57 s, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (
59 ealed binary restenosis rates of 27% in bare metal stents and 0% in drug-eluting stents, with mean di
60 occurred in 54.7% of all patients with bare-metal stents and 48.7% of patients with drug-eluting ste
61 cations such as anchoring of self-expandable metal stents and bariatric therapy, both primary and sec
62 ts receiving drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents and bivalirudin alone versus heparin plus a
63 raphic result similar to the result of other metal stents and can be safely degraded after 4 months.
64 (ST) have included mostly patients with bare metal stents and early-generation drug-eluting stents (D
65 DS AND Animals receiving SESs, PESs, or bare metal stents and either RSG (3 mg/kg per day) or placebo
66 eive either sirolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and five double-blind trials in which 3513
67 re assessed in rabbits receiving ZES or bare-metal stents and Mf or placebo by scanning electron micr
68 e highlights the limitations of conventional metal stents and the potential benefits of using BRSs in
69 ilar after excluding patients receiving bare metal stents and using an alternative MACE definition th
70 ere treated with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and whether use was standard or off-label.
72 comes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents, and most are relatively small randomized c
74 greatest in ECs farthest from intact SMCs in metal stented arteries and altogether absent after sirol
75 revascularization with drug-eluting and bare metal stents associates with a high risk of in-stent res
76 ed balloon angioplasty for treatment of bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosi
77 rapy is safer and more effective than a bare-metal stent (BMS) for patients with high risk of bleedin
78 taxel-eluting stent (PES) and a similar bare-metal stent (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions.
80 rcetin (Q)-eluting stent with that of a bare metal stent (BMS) on neointimal hyperplasia and re-endot
83 ed with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) plus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus BMS versus drug-eluting stent (
84 ow tract obstruction is possible with a bare metal stent (BMS), although this treatment causes pulmon
85 andomized comparisons of the SES to the bare-metal stent (BMS), and two were prospective non-randomiz
89 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, 17.3
91 mproved clinical outcomes compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) among a nationally representative, no
92 ess of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) among patients >/=85 years of age.
93 fficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less well
94 term clinical outcomes differed between bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) by dura
98 ug-eluting stents (n-DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and old-generation drug-eluting stent
99 ith paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) and to formally evaluate the incremen
100 ymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by means of a network meta-analysis.
101 platforms, previous generation DES, and bare-metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary interventio
103 ) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) has not been studied in the kidney tr
105 rences in outcome after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS) have been described, there are no dat
106 ed everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with ST-se
109 ir long-term safety relative to that of bare-metal stents (BMS) in general use remains uncertain.
110 as equal risks but higher efficacy than bare-metal stents (BMS) in long femoropopliteal artery diseas
111 ug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare-metal stents (BMS) in octogenarian patients with angina.
112 drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in older patients with chronic kidney
113 el revascularization in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with chronic kidney disea
114 different drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation
115 g stents (PES) and otherwise equivalent bare metal stents (BMS) in ST-segment elevation myocardial in
117 eluting stents (SES) in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) in treatment of focal infrapopliteal
121 paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) on distal vessels in the serial intra
122 imate the relative impact of DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) on safety and efficacy end points, pa
124 unique drug fast-release profile versus bare-metal stents (BMS) under similar durations of dual-antip
125 ity among drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) while adjusting for many confounding
126 al balloon coronary angioplasty (PTCA), bare-metal stents (BMS), and drug-eluting stents (DES) succee
127 stent resolute), against each other or bare metal stents (BMS), and enrolling >/= 50 patients with S
128 repeat revascularizations compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), but their effects on death and myoca
129 th higher rate of late ST compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), especially in patients with ST-segme
130 tervention to SVG in patients receiving bare-metal stents (BMS), first-generation DES, and newer gene
132 s into superior outcomes, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), for the full spectrum of patients tr
133 on the restenosis benefit of DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the incremental risk of stent thromb
134 drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS), the relative risk of stent thrombosi
135 T with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the timing of the event, clinical co
146 types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in these
148 olimus from a biodegradable polymer and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in the COMFORTABLE trial (Comparison
149 eointimal proliferation of a therapy of bare metal stents (BMSs) postdilated with the paclitaxel drug
150 afety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) with respect to stent thrombosis (ST
151 required more durable biliary decompression (metal stents) but was not associated with local tumor pr
152 rom myocardial infarction compared with bare metal stents, but increase the risk of stent thrombosis,
153 stents reduce restenosis compared with bare metal stents, but there is growing concern that drug-elu
155 Small case series of blocked self-expanding metal stent clearance using RFA have been published.
156 ntly different in patients treated with bare metal stents compared with drug-eluting stents (1.4% ver
157 raft implantation and/or placement of a bare metal stent, complications, and follow-up images were ev
158 nts reduce restenosis rates relative to bare-metal stents, concerns have been raised that drug-elutin
159 to characterize NA in 65 (51 DES and 14 bare-metal stents) consecutive symptomatic patients with in-s
160 ) and PES (n=12) was compared against a bare metal stent control (n=12; Innova, Boston Scientific, MA
163 s mellitus, stent type (drug-eluting or bare metal stent), CYP2C19 genetic status, loading dose of as
164 ly available, fully covered, self-expanding, metal stent (diameter 18 mm, length 120 mm) to bridge a
167 only bare-metal stents were available (bare-metal stent era cohort) and 28,086 similar patients who
168 a), group 2 (early stent era), group 3 (bare-metal stent era), and group 4 (drug-eluting stent era).
170 tudies from the balloon angioplasty and bare metal stent eras have demonstrated that coronary artery
175 ronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet th
176 hown to be cost-effective compared with bare-metal stents for select clinical trial patients, whether
177 (BVS), a promising alternative to permanent metal stents for treatment of coronary heart disease.
180 placement of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FSEMS), a partially covered SEMS (PSEMS) or
181 fidence interval 0.22 to 0.95]) and the bare-metal stent group (0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.26 to
182 Taxus group and 0.76% +/- 0.23% in the bare-metal stent group at 3 years (hazard ratio 1.51 [95% con
183 irolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.20) and 1.3% in the paclitaxel-st
184 irolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI],
188 irolimus-stent group versus 1.7% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.70; 95% CI, -1.5 to 1.0) and 1.8%
189 roup and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage poin
190 group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage poin
191 irolimus-stent group versus 0.4% in the bare-metal-stent group and 0.9% in the paclitaxel-stent group
194 -eluting stent showed similar safety as bare-metal stent >12 months and between 6 and 12 months and a
195 l-eluting stents and those treated with bare-metal stents had similar 12-month rates of death (3.5% a
196 s receiving drug-eluting stents (versus bare-metal stents) had a lower 30-month mortality (IPW HR: 0.
197 ts, as compared with those who received bare-metal stents, had significantly lower 12-month rates of
199 of approved drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents have shown additional cases of late stent t
200 olymer and 49 patients (8.7%) receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80
201 stents and 19.8% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.85;
202 stents and 17.1% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interva
203 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) as w
204 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64, 0.84) compared with bare metal stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79, 0.98; interaction
205 ry be delayed until 30 to 45 days after bare-metal stent implantation and 1 year after drug-eluting s
206 be postponed for at least 4 weeks after bare metal stent implantation and 6-12 months after drug-elut
207 lective surgery is 46 to 180 days after bare-metal stent implantation or >180 days after drug-eluting
208 g-eluting stent placement compared with bare-metal stent implantation remain unsettled, with conseque
209 proved therapy for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation, drug-eluting stents are now be
211 e drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who
212 A9 Drug Coated Stent Versus the Gazelle Bare Metal Stent in Patients With High Risk of Bleeding [LEAD
215 ted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
218 with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents in randomized clinical trials, although the
219 ive risks of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in specific high-risk groups require furthe
220 drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents in the composite outcome of death from any
222 tents may have clinical advantages over bare-metal stents in the extremely proliferative environment
223 g-eluting stent performance relative to bare metal stents in the setting of acute myocardial infarcti
224 f drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, in patients with ST-segment elevation myoc
226 reported between drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR groups in terms of device-oriented compo
227 tment of complex drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR lesions might be associated with accepta
228 lts of 94 patients treated with EES for bare-metal stent ISR were compared with those of 155 patients
233 77 ISR lesions) distributed as follows: bare metal stent (n=388), first-generation DES (n=425), and s
234 ent with paclitaxel DEB and provisional bare-metal stenting (n = 90) or PES implantation (n = 92).
235 sclerosis (n =10) or implanted coronary bare-metal stents (n = 10, 3.5-mm diameter, day 7 post-implan
237 he benefits of drug-eluting stents over bare-metal stents observed in randomized clinical trials to h
238 drug-eluting stents versus contemporary bare-metal stents on rates of death, myocardial infarction, r
239 , 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).
242 ing stents versus none in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.025) and nine episodes in patients wit
244 4.4% with both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents (P=0.98) and 4.3% versus 4.6% in patients r
246 ) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-E
247 , there was no change in the percent of bare-metal stent patients reporting clopidogrel use at 6-mont
250 rtality included balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stent placement compared with drug-eluting stent p
251 days (P < .001) and decreased following bare metal stent placement from 402 to 309 days (P < .001).
252 en 1992 and 2010, 27 patients underwent bare-metal stent placement in the ventricular septum or subva
254 o 13% after angioplasty, 0% to 5% after bare metal stent placement, and <1% after covered stent place
257 , fractional flow reserve measurements, bare-metal stents, postprocedural medications, and radial acc
261 ty of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with ST-s
265 esh-covered stent compared with conventional metal stents resulted in superior rates of epicardial co
266 balloon angioplasty or with the use of bare-metal stents, results in greater relief from angina and
267 tes were 14.5% for DES versus 23.0% for bare metal stents (risk difference, -8.5%; P<0.001), an impla
271 itaxel-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, significantly reduced angiographic evidenc
273 ations of plain balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents, some limitations apply, most notably a chr
274 receive a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a bare metal stent (stent randomisation; stratified by pharmaco
275 tial Double-Blind Drug-Eluting Stent vs Bare-Metal Stent Study, NCT00233805; The Study of the BX Velo
276 t that a self-expandable, esophageal covered metal stent (SX-ELLA Danis; Ella-CS, Hradec Kralove, Cze
278 ts of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents, the evidence seems to suggest that the net
283 differences in outcomes for DES versus bare metal stents using a 2-stage least squares instrumental
284 was 45 to 180 days, the event rate for bare-metal stents was 2.6%, approaching that of intermediate-
285 d a balanced mixture of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents was not significantly more effective than a
286 ive either paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents; we then analyzed the major clinical end po
287 tober 2002 through March 2003 when only bare-metal stents were available (bare-metal stent era cohort
288 scularization) with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents were compared using inverse probability wei
290 drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents were determined from vital-statistics recor
292 nhibitor and use of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents were not significant predictors of reinfarc
293 ed stents, and 11.2% balloon expandable bare metal stents) were placed in 692 renal arteries, 156 sup
295 ting stents as compared with those with bare-metal stents, whereas the risk of repeat revascularizati
297 irolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and effic
298 nal cardiologists have quickly replaced bare metal stents with intravascular drug-eluting stents for
299 ients randomized to drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents with successful stenting documented by free
WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。