ライフサイエンスコーパス: metallic stent

1 ble scaffold and the patients who received a metallic stent.

2 clinical outcomes to the everolimus-eluting metallic stent.

3 sorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent.

4 an angioplasty balloon wrapped with a coiled metallic stent.

5 le vascular scaffolds and everolimus-eluting metallic stents.

6 dehiscence were treated with self-expanding metallic stents.

7 ite repeated shunt revisions with additional metallic stents.

8 ngioplasty balloons with placement of coiled metallic stents.

9 the MGuard versus any commercially available metallic stent (39.8% drug-eluting).

10 icantly higher with plastic stents than with metallic stents (40/148 vs 13/117 patients, respectively

11 rbable vascular scaffold (924 patients) or a metallic stent (921 patients).

12 questioned because the optical density of a metallic stent, added to the density of a contrast-fille

13 up analysis was performed for plastic versus metallic stents and anastomotic leaks versus perforation

14 bolstered by advances such as fully covered metallic stents and cholangioscopy.

15 ong biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting metallic stents and fully bioabsorbable scaffolds to dat

16 cally decreased the accumulating thrombus on metallic stents and segments of vascular graft (P<.001 i

17 thetic vascular graft, deployed endovascular metallic stents, and endarterectomized aorta (P<0.009 in

18 Metallic stents are currently an established component o

19 Self-expanding metallic stents are known to be associated with signific

20 an endothelial cell mitogen could passivate metallic stents by accelerating endothelialization of th

21 A 1-year follow-up, polymer-free metallic stent coated with biolimus-A9 followed by 1-mon

22 A newly designed metallic stent contains honeycombed strut elements with

23 y disease, no data from comparisons with its metallic stent counterpart are available.

24 possible that fully covered, self-expandable metallic stents (cSEMS) may require fewer endoscopic ret

25 vascular scaffold (BVS) versus drug-eluting metallic stent (DES) in the same individual receiving mu

26 trials comparing BVS with everolimus-eluting metallic stents (EES) raised concerns about BVS safety.

27 retreated with a fully cover self-expandable metallic stent (FCSEMS), resulting in closure of the lea

28 ed in part to the persistent presence of the metallic stent frame in the coronary-vessel wall.

29 old group (335 patients, 364 lesions) or the metallic stent group (166 patients, 182 lesions).

30 resorbable scaffold group vs 50 [30%] in the metallic stent group, p=0.04), whereas performance durin

31 postdilatation were higher and larger in the metallic stent group, whereas the acute recoil post impl

32 group compared with five (3%) events in the metallic stent group, with the most common adverse event

33 able late), compared with no patients in the metallic stent group.

34 milar between the bioresorbable scaffold and metallic stent groups (16 patients [5%] vs five patients

35 atheter to 16 rabbit iliac arteries in which metallic stents had been placed at the site of balloon i

36 Patients with metallic stents had significantly higher incidence of po

37 vascular scaffold (BVS), no comparison with metallic stents has been conducted in a randomized fashi

38 orb bioresorbable scaffold versus the Xience metallic stent in angiographic vasomotor reactivity afte

39 sorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the context of routine clinical practi

40 n limited by nondiagnostic studies caused by metallic stent material and coronary motion.

41 echanisms of early ScT seem to be similar to metallic stents (mechanical and inadequate antiplatelet

42 atening bronchial dehiscence, self-expanding metallic stents offer prospects for a successful outcome

43 ssessment of new bioresorbable polymer-based metallic stents or bioresorbable scaffolds in patients w

44 I-fibrin in thrombus forming on endovascular metallic stents or thrombogenic segments of vascular gra

45 Percutaneous angioplasty along with metallic stent placement has been described as an effect

46 omentum toward minimally invasive therapies, metallic stent placement has expanded into the nonsurgic

47 Self-expanding metallic stent placement resulted in complete bronchial

48 Self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) insertion has been suggested as a

49 lar cholangiocarcinoma using self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) and plastic stents (PS).We also c

50 tenting (PTBS) with uncovered selfexpandable metallic stents (SEMS), and to identify predictors of su

51 escribe our experience using self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) in patients with airway complica

52 Metallic stents should be considered an appropriate opti

53 ndependent effect of a durable polymer and a metallic stent surface on thrombogenicity and endothelia

54 ded that effective gene vector delivery from metallic stent surfaces can be achieved by using this ap

55 nosis by using gene vector delivery from the metallic stent surfaces has never been demonstrated.

56 ppealing, the impact of durable polymers and metallic stent surfaces on vascular healing remains uncl

57 l group comprising 15 patients with definite metallic stent thrombosis.

58 th early and late BVS thrombosis, similar to metallic stent thrombosis.

59 angiographic or OCT findings between BVS and metallic stent thrombosis.

60 gher incidence of device thrombosis than the metallic stent through 2 years of follow-up.

61 describe our experience using self-expanding metallic stents to treat post-lung transplant bronchial

62 ound to have expansion properties similar to metallic stents, utilizing materials which are typically

63 delivery of a 15-mm-long, balloon-expandable metallic stent was performed in 64 rabbit external iliac

64 ood patency rate (100%) with self-expandable metallic stents was noted in long-term follow-up.

65 Metallic stents were deployed if necessary.

66 Noncovered metallic stents were then placed to connect both veins.

67 b bioresorbable scaffold with respect to the metallic stent, which was found to have significantly lo

68 e between plastic stents and short, covered, metallic stents, while other authors suggest the use of

69 ng studies of fully covered, self-expandable metallic stents, with an emphasis on their potential use

70 The use of metallic stents within the stomach, duodenum, or colon i

71 ct diameter 6 mm or more in whom the covered metallic stent would not overlap the cystic duct, cSEMS

72 USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA

73 USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA