ライフサイエンスコーパス: percutaneous coronary intervention

1 ed definite AST (occurring </=24 hours after percutaneous coronary intervention).

2 ne") for a preference of bypass surgery over percutaneous coronary intervention.

3 l approach for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention.

4 ally beneficial ancillary therapy in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

5 ble for bare metal in-stent restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention.

6 ngrelor was compared with clopidogrel during percutaneous coronary intervention.

7 coronary angiography with intent to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention.

8 e antiplatelet therapy in patients following percutaneous coronary intervention.

9 underwent the desensitization after primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

10 race and sex among MI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

11 mprove the outcomes of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

12 ety of BVS versus EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

13 oninfarct-artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

14 ion myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

15 mplete diagnostic angiography before primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

16 fourth of SCAD patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

17 Interventions: Percutaneous coronary intervention.

18 ents with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

19 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

20 ns for physiological lesion assessment after percutaneous coronary intervention.

21 of increased ST within 4 hours after primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

22 a who had incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary intervention.

23 bypass grafting in patients not amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention.

24 ed bleeding complications and mortality post percutaneous coronary intervention.

25 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

26 ical outcomes among SCAD patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

27 ortant markers of quality of care in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

28 e potential to improve long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention.

29 publicly reported mortality statistics after percutaneous coronary intervention.

30 on and impaired myocardial reperfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention.

31 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

32 s and myocardial infarction in adults having percutaneous coronary intervention.

33 coronary angiography with intent to perform percutaneous coronary intervention.

34 t-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

35 anatomy, hemodynamic instability, or failed percutaneous coronary intervention.

36 ent in a broad patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

37 STEMI, whether or not they were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

38 t-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

39 ed risk of post-operative stroke compared to percutaneous coronary intervention.

40 measures of prognosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

41 coronary syndromes and for those undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

42 resonance between 2 and 5 days after primary percutaneous coronary interventions.

43 ial infarction patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary interventions.

44 he access point for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions.

45 myocardial infarction in the era of primary percutaneous coronary interventions.

46 n myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary interventions.

47 multivessel coronary artery disease: 1-stage percutaneous coronary intervention (1S-PCI) during the i

48 hock (24%), mechanical support (28%), urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (28%), urgent coronar

49 coronary angiography (14.7% vs. 10.1%), and percutaneous coronary intervention (3.8% vs. 2.1%); all

50 y Intervention) for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (667,424 procedures p

51 vs. 64.1%; P < 0.001) and therefore require percutaneous coronary intervention (68.3% vs. 43.4%; P <

52 of repeat revascularization procedures were percutaneous coronary interventions (94.2%), and this di

53 hen surgery was performed within 3 months of percutaneous coronary intervention, adjusted odds of MAC

54 e potential to improve long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention after their complete

55 ade-only approach to chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention among 1301 procedures

56 telet reactivity and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions among subjects with

57 APT Study (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy), after percutaneous coronary intervention and 12 months of thie

58 Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG show compara

59 Percutaneous coronary intervention and CABG were associa

60 aphy/magnetic resonance imaging 5 days after percutaneous coronary intervention and follow-up cardiac

61 rates of adverse cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention and may additionally

62 years or older, who were undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and presenting less t

63 Local treatment of vulnerable plaques by percutaneous coronary intervention and systemic treatmen

64 of clinical variables (male sex and previous percutaneous coronary intervention) and 4 biomarkers (mi

65 ronary angiography, 12 183 (46.2%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, and 2832 (10.7%) und

66 In Myocardial Infarction flow grade <3 after percutaneous coronary intervention, and arterial blood l

67 ed as having previous myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery

68 atio >1.25, expansion index >/=0.8, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, and higher level of

69 tes of hyperlipidemia, smoking, a history of percutaneous coronary intervention, and were more than t

70 y attributable to fewer hospitalizations for percutaneous coronary intervention, angina, and stroke.

71 TRA has become the dominant percutaneous coronary intervention approach in the Unite

72 Older patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention are at increased risk

73 luting stents among 1919 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 76 centers.

74 Percutaneous coronary intervention at a VA hospital.

75 S versus metallic EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at longest available

76 Consecutive patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention at our institution be

77 Performing culprit-vessel primary percutaneous coronary intervention before contralateral

78 udied 17 903 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention between 2000 and 2014

79 mortality risk among 8952 adults undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention between October 1, 20

80 ces in clinical profiles and indications for percutaneous coronary intervention by region in a large

81 an regions across the United States with 132 percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospitals and

82 period, 10 730 patients were transported to percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospitals, in

83 lly report process of care measures from the percutaneous coronary intervention (CathPCI) and implant

84 ic events at 48 hours in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention compared with clopido

85 rest in New York were less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention compared with referen

86 er la Lotta Contro L'Infarto-Optimization of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) database collecting

87 gina with incomplete revascularisation after percutaneous coronary intervention (defined as one or mo

88 after treatment with a drug-eluting stent by percutaneous coronary intervention (DES-PCI).

89 myocardial infarction patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention discharged alive on A

90 used in contemporary chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention, especially among mor

91 technique in hybrid chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention, especially when ante

92 seline Q waves and additionally into primary percutaneous coronary intervention, fibrinolysis, or no

93 ith stable coronary artery disease underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for a culprit lesion,

94 =2.0), in the culprit artery after emergency percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment-

95 orld registry of 271 845 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for elective, non-ST-

96 e 2014, 116 patients (127 lesions) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for ISR with BVS impl

97 cluded in the study were patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarc

98 educed bleeding and mortality during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevat

99 foration (CP) during chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina (CT

100 patients were less likely to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI (77% vs 81%

101 : 1) CathPCI (Diagnostic Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) for coronary angiogr

102 and Wales in 448 853 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention from 2005 to 2012.

103 with STEMI undergoing transport for primary percutaneous coronary intervention from March 10, 2010,

104 ohort and validated in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention from the PLATelet inh

105 For relief of coronary obstruction, percutaneous coronary intervention has become a standard

106 Now marking its 40th anniversary, percutaneous coronary intervention has become one of the

107 y angioplasty on Sept 16, 1977, the field of percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved rapidly.

108 Revascularized patients with either percutaneous coronary intervention (hazard ratio, 0.64;

109 tients presented with acute STEMI (direct to percutaneous coronary intervention hospital: 11 765 EMS

110 CHD; and in low-risk asymptomatic patients, percutaneous coronary intervention in "screen-positive"

111 e in patients undergoing elective and urgent percutaneous coronary intervention in 90 hospitals in 13

112 BC is an independent predictor of MACE after percutaneous coronary intervention in a contemporary all

113 atients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a

114 ed trials (TAPAS [Thrombus Aspiration During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial I

115 of restenosis, permitting widespread use of percutaneous coronary intervention in more advanced and

116 The added benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention in non-infarct-relate

117 Deferring percutaneous coronary intervention in nonischemic lesion

118 r coronary perforation (CP) occurring during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with a hi

119 between culprit artery-only and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-s

120 tervention is superior to angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in reducing the risk

121 eration DES, and bare-metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention in saphenous vein gra

122 thrombosis (ST) within 30 days after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment-elevati

123 all-comers population of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the contemporary e

124 ients Registry), 4222 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States

125 At the acute stage, intended primary percutaneous coronary intervention increased from 12% (1

126 fTRA CTO percutaneous coronary intervention is a valid alternativ

127 d not occur in isolation, and the success of percutaneous coronary intervention is also due to import

128 Percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lo

129 short-term mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is currently unknown.

130 Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is frequently success

131 ts for diffuse coronary lesions, IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention is superior to angiog

132 evation in SCAD patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions is not well establis

133 heral revascularization is extrapolated from percutaneous coronary intervention literature.

134 In patients with NSTEMI, percutaneous coronary intervention </=72 hours from admi

135 d improvements in patient selection, current percutaneous coronary intervention may allow appropriate

136 METHODS AND We reviewed the 10-year percutaneous coronary intervention morbidity and mortali

137 es the processes for conduct of an effective percutaneous coronary intervention morbidity and mortali

138 during the index procedure versus multistage percutaneous coronary intervention (MS-PCI) complete cor

139 comparing immediate/single-stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) versus culpr

140 First patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1604; mean age, 61

141 ting Xience and Left Ventricular Function in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Occlusions After S

142 omplete revascularization or infarct-related percutaneous coronary intervention only.

143 th only 16.5% or 2.2% undergoing in-hospital percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery by

144 We assessed revascularization status by percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery by

145 strategy of routine revascularization (with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery by

146 was not associated with changes in rates of percutaneous coronary intervention or in-hospital mortal

147 significantly higher at 12 to 24 months from percutaneous coronary intervention (OR = 1.95; 95% CI, 1

148 ritising immediate revascularisation through percutaneous coronary intervention (or fibrinolysis), ad

149 any cause, repeat revascularization (CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention), or nonfatal myocard

150 le or unstable angina, previous multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention, or previous multi-ve

151 r in the ratio of native versus graft vessel percutaneous coronary intervention (P=0.899), or regardi

152 ute myocardial infarction who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to cu

153 dial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and deferred st

154 HMI impulses (n = 20) just prior to emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and for an addi

155 ry (AKI) remains a common complication after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is associat

156 tiplatelet medications used during and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are contraindic

157 and predictors of its improvement after CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are unknown.

158 risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a pilot proj

159 There are concerns whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at centers with

160 hs of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) based on the pr

161 dy sought to determine the incidence of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) bleeding that o

162 er coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) carries benefit

163 ry disease may benefit more from multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with c

164 Previous studies found that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improv

165 To examine access to reperfusion and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during STEMI us

166 Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic tot

167 nary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel

168 and predictors of long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for radiation-a

169 t ischemic and bleeding events after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment

170 Patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment-

171 Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable coro

172 Thrombus aspiration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatme

173 The evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has led to impr

174 c versus nondiabetic patients after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been re

175 herapy, optimal antiplatelet management with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been we

176 larization of the culprit artery by means of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcom

177 We sought to reduce readmissions after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a large tert

178 y artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic pat

179 comes of performing coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients res

180 Few studies have explored percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in perioperativ

181 Symptomatic relief is the primary goal of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable angin

182 erns in anticoagulant strategies used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United S

183 among black and white patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Veterans

184 postconditioning of the heart during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) induced by repe

185 Bleeding after hospital discharge from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated w

186 Acute kidney injury (AKI) complicating percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated w

187 Acute kidney injury (AKI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is common, morb

188 Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is most commonl

189 if coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may offer a sur

190 Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may therefore b

191 of the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-left ant

192 Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of saphenous ve

193 catheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the left mai

194 association of short-term readmissions after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on healthcare c

195 timal medical therapy (OMT), with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary art

196 Public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes may cr

197 We examined outcomes of CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) post-CABG versu

198 for inpatient hospital stays, most nonacute percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures are

199 commended minimum number to an average of 50 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures perf

200 Dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces ischemi

201 in the same individual receiving multilesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains poorly

202 etween procedural volume and prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains uncerta

203 cardiogenic shock from the publicly reported percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) risk-adjusted m

204 cardiac stress testing within 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to be rarely ap

205 on myocardial infarction (STEMI), the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to restore bloo

206 ecent randomized trials, we assessed whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-elut

207 with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using everolimu

208 algorithm for chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was developed t

209 TAVR was performed in the same setting if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was uncomplicat

210 Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a bioresor

211 low reserve (FFR) measured immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluti

212 However, some studies suggest that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluti

213 ry bypass graft (CABG) surgery compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluti

214 The comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluti

215 iate anatomical complexity to undergo either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with fluoropoly

216 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement

217 The SYNTAX [Synergy Between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) With Taxus and

218 Patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 90 min l

219 unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but the overal

220 pecific outcome data for procedures, such as percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), can influence

221 ine recommendations that patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary arter

222 In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), drug-eluting s

223 dney injury (AKI) is common during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly i

224 safety of the same-day discharge (SDD) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), uptake of this

225 nefit (score >/=2) from prolonged DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

226 ronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

227 , is approved for use in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

228 e the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

229 perience worse cardiovascular outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

230 tients with a history of AF commonly undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

231 branch RAO and one case of central RAO after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

232 persists or returns in populations following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

233 for women and minorities after contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

234 ociation with increased adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

235 her risk for recurrent ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); however, no lo

236 rel Standard Therapy in Subjects Who Require Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] [CHAMPION PHOEN

237 128 coronary artery bypass graft [CABG], 150 percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], 96 medical the

238 treated with a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are often per

239 s have demonstrated relatively high rates of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) classified as

240 The frequency of complex percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) has increased

241 CTCA), and assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs).

242 ntravenous (IV) beta-blockers before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) on infarct siz

243 40 STEMI patients reperfused by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) underwent a CM

244 eft ventricular systolic function is primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

245 al infarction (STEMI) and undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

246 Percutaneous coronary intervention (primary outcome), in

247 cess nationally has led to worse outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention procedures performed

248 METHODS AND We analyzed 1253 CTO percutaneous coronary intervention procedures performed

249 tive analysis of 235 250 transfemoral access percutaneous coronary intervention procedures was undert

250 gina with incomplete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention, ranolazine's effect

251 t therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention reduces the risk for

252 MI in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, regardless of defini

253 ents were prospectively enrolled in the Bern Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Registry.

254 gistry adopting the hybrid algorithm for CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (Registry of CrossBos

255 rison to antegrade-only crossing, retrograde percutaneous coronary intervention remains critical for

256 One-fifth of MI patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention report 1-year postdis

257 intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention should be routinely e

258 The prevalence of post-percutaneous coronary intervention stent edge dissection

259 (Ad Hoc Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Study in Acute Corona

260 t in a complex patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention suggests a new direct

261 oronary intervention (P=0.899), or regarding percutaneous coronary intervention target vessels; the m

262 brovascular event at least 1 year before the percutaneous coronary intervention, the efficacy and ble

263 low, once they survive the first month after percutaneous coronary intervention, their prognosis is c

264 less procedural complexity, shorter primary percutaneous coronary intervention time was associated w

265 mic risk is inversely related with time from percutaneous coronary intervention to surgery and is inf

266 e interplay between stent type and time from percutaneous coronary intervention to surgery was indepe

267 Patients (n=15 003) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention to SVG in England and

268 aimed to assess clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention to SVG in patients re

269 METHODS AND Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to SVG in the United

270 One in 5 percutaneous coronary intervention-treated myocardial in

271 Overall, 2514 (21.2%) of percutaneous coronary intervention-treated patients stop

272 STEMI who were being transported for primary percutaneous coronary intervention, treatment with bival

273 ction Patients: One Stage Versus Multistaged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, 584 patients

274 ents with Incomplete Revascularization after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, a clinical tr

275 ive conditional survival up to 10 years post-percutaneous coronary intervention was calculated.

276 atheterization was common (71% and 51%), but percutaneous coronary intervention was low (6.5% and 5.0

277 Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 235

278 Percutaneous coronary intervention was successful in onl

279 ECLS, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention were performed, as ap

280 cardial infarction (MI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to pr

281 a and incomplete revascularization following percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to ra

282 s for pneumonia, bone fractures, and planned percutaneous coronary intervention were used as the fals

283 nts undergoing diagnostic catheterization or percutaneous coronary interventions were randomized in a

284 rel Standard Therapy in Subjects Who Require Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) were 3 randomized, d

285 radial access as the default access site for percutaneous coronary intervention wherever possible in

286 identify high-risk lesions benefitting from percutaneous coronary intervention while safely allowing

287 e thrombotic lesions, and 46 (84%) of 55 had percutaneous coronary intervention with 2.7 +/- 2.0 sten

288 was performed on all patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with BVS implantation

289 ortality and cardiovascular morbidity during percutaneous coronary intervention with DES and with BMS

290 Sex differences in the outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting ste

291 outcomes in 4935 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantati

292 30, 2016, on patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention with stents and were

293 The SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardia

294 (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardia

295 SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardia

296 t the sites and defined by a Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardia

297 In the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardia

298 with a follow-up of >/=2 years investigating percutaneous coronary interventions with BVS versus EES.

299 rdial infarction management involves primary percutaneous coronary intervention, with ongoing studies

300 r and 30-day rates of ischemic events during percutaneous coronary intervention without an increase i