ライフサイエンスコーパス: procedural

1 specialize included clinical synergy (70%), procedural activity (50%), and less interest in pulmonol

2 nfemoral access site (1.96; 1.65- 2.33), and procedural acuity categories 2 (1.57; 1.20-2.05), 3 (2.7

3 We aimed to assess whether pre-procedural administration of rectal indometacin in all p

4 sk-stratified, post-procedural strategy, pre-procedural administration of rectal indometacin in unsel

5 lanted in all patients; no device-related or procedural adverse events occurred during follow-up.

6 vorable safety profile with minimal acute or procedural adverse events.

7 Procedural AF termination was achieved in 70% of patient

8 popliteal arterial disease reveal suboptimal procedural and 1-year clinical outcomes.

9 Peri-procedural and 30-day complication rates in the unconfou

10 We report the procedural and 30-day results of the first-in-man study

11 From the TMVR multicenter registry, procedural and clinical outcomes of mitral ViV and ViR w

12 he pure native AR TAVR multicenter registry, procedural and clinical outcomes were assessed according

13 impact of stent oversizing was documented on procedural and clinical outcomes.

14 antable cardioverter-defibrillator may offer procedural and cosmetic advantages.

15 atient safety focused on a reduction in both procedural and diagnostic error is the number one concer

16 ncrease access to dialysis while maintaining procedural and distributive justice; minimise the influe

17 s associated with higher success and shorter procedural and fluoroscopy times compared with PVAI in A

18 Procedural and in-hospital mortality were 1.4% and 8.5%,

19 h left atrial appendage closure, focusing on procedural and late outcomes, and pointing to future dir

20 Further research is needed on procedural and long-term clinical outcomes.

21 leave with no significant difference between procedural and nonprocedural fields.

22 career satisfaction for female physicians in procedural and nonprocedural fields.

23 In addition, variations in procedural and postprocedural care were examined, includ

24 tively, theories of RL have largely involved procedural and semantic memory, the way in which knowled

25 ery or ulcers as an etiology, and aggressive procedural and surgical management.

26 g system requirements, structural needs, and procedural and technical factors for the entire VL casca

27 mary end point and the device, angiographic, procedural, and clinical success rates.

28 Device, angiographic, procedural, and clinical success was achieved in 99.2%,

29 Clinical, demographic, procedural, and outcomes data were collected for all pat

30 Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics.

31 To determine the accuracy of diagnostic, procedural, and therapeutic billing codes used in the tr

32 r TAVR and to investigate whether parenteral procedural anticoagulation strategies affect cerebral em

33 s to assess the comparative effectiveness of procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin compared wit

34 ndergoing peripheral vascular interventions, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin may result i

35 isk of mortality after early ST according to procedural antithrombotic therapy.

36 tation (12.7% vs. 24.4%; p = 0.007) and post-procedural AR >/= moderate (4.2% vs. 18.8%; p < 0.001).

37 gnificantly higher in the patients with post-procedural AR >/= moderate compared with those with post

38 On multivariable analysis, post-procedural AR >/= moderate was independently associated

39 R >/= moderate compared with those with post-procedural AR </= mild (46.1% vs. 21.8%; log-rank p = 0.

40 tients with pure native AR, significant post-procedural AR was independently associated with increase

41 Single-procedural arrhythmia freedom at 13 months median follow

42 e by testing for the occurrence of potential procedural artifacts (dissolution, agglomeration) using

43 atient safety and secondly to prevent abuses/procedural biases.

44 , which accounted for essentially the entire procedural blank for early eluting AAs.

45 eries in the 85-95% range are achieved, with procedural blanks of 10-100 pg, negligible with regard t

46 ed with an increased risk of developing post-procedural bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 1.32; 95% confiden

47 Constraining procedural carbon (C) blanks and their isotopic contribu

48 ial fibrillation (AF) remains a clinical and procedural challenge.

49 albumin, functional class, and weight loss), procedural characteristics (complexity, relative value u

50 This retrospective cohort study compared procedural characteristics and adverse events between a

51 However, national data regarding procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes over ti

52 rdiovascular Disease to compare baseline and procedural characteristics and to assess postdischarge o

53 her-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal canc

54 We compared patient and procedural characteristics of 470 CTO cases treated from

55 ifferences in the demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics of these groups.

56 y was to determine the effect of patient and procedural characteristics on rates of adverse events an

57 tic regression model to identify patient and procedural characteristics predictive of a major adverse

58 Donor, recipient, and procedural characteristics were analyzed.

59 Data on study, patient, and procedural characteristics were extracted.

60 t to characterize the clinical presentation, procedural characteristics, diagnostic investigations, a

61 r outcome determinants including patient and procedural characteristics, is associated with outcomes.

62 Clinical/procedural characteristics, mortality, and ScT data at 4

63 ustment for demographics, comorbidities, and procedural characteristics, odds for 1-year mortality (o

64 combined with a low event rate and improved procedural characteristics, support further use of the h

65 after surgery, preoperative length of stay, procedural characteristics, surgical program complexity,

66 After adjustment for baseline and procedural characteristics, WBC remained independently a

67 s between the groups in baseline clinical or procedural characteristics.

68 ient, left ventricular ejection fraction, or procedural characteristics.

69 Procedural closure occurred in 97.9%, with 1-month and 2

70 evision, Clinical Modification diagnosis and procedural codes in medical bills.

71 o identify these cancers using diagnosis and procedural codes submitted for reimbursement purposes.

72 tween ages 2 and 21 years with diagnostic or procedural codes suggesting musculoskeletal disease asso

73 Despite less procedural complexity, shorter primary percutaneous coro

74 Procedural complication rates included 39 pericardial ta

75 disease (22.2%), cardiac conditions (11.4%), procedural complications (11.0%), and endocrine issues (

76 The most common cause of readmission was procedural complications (28.0%), followed by sepsis (8.

77 The rates of procedural complications (5.8%) and acute kidney injury

78 ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.25-0.64; P<0.001) and procedural complications (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0

79 tral ViR was associated with higher rates of procedural complications and mid-term mortality compared

80 Secondary end points included procedural complications and type 4a periprocedural myoc

81 Procedural complications from PFO closure occurred in 14

82 Procedural complications including THV malpositioning, s

83 Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1.7%)

84 Major procedural complications occurred in 4 of the 113 patien

85 No procedural complications were reported.

86 mprovements in existing devices have reduced procedural complications, and scientific trials are inve

87 ortic valve predilatation (BAVP) in reducing procedural complications, but there are few data to supp

88 example, few PCI readmissions are caused by procedural complications, limiting the extent to which i

89 and rehospitalization, but similar risks of procedural complications.

90 r adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and procedural complications.

91 malignant causes of biliary obstruction and procedural complications.

92 vents: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.30-2.18; P = .68; procedural complications: OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.11-1.22; P

93 f national experts in pediatric dermatology, procedural/cosmetic dermatology, plastic surgery, scars,

94 gulatory approval in March 2015, we obtained procedural data on implantation procedures.

95 Patient and procedural data were collected, including body mass inde

96 e analyzed with respect to demographic data, procedural data, and short-term outcomes.

97 There were 2 procedural deaths related to ventricular fibrillation.

98 -42%, P = 0.007) reduction in errors causing procedural delay in the PsR group.

99 Procedural details about contrast administration were no

100 Patient-related factors, procedural details and outcomes, and follow-up data were

101 rsive procedure, revealing the importance of procedural differences to the demonstration of the drug

102 fTRA compared with TFA had similar procedural duration (80 minutes [54-120 minutes] versus

103 on was associated with significantly shorter procedural duration and fluoroscopy time (231+/-72 versu

104 Procedural efficacy can best be improved through continu

105 s technical success, complication rates, and procedural efficiency in fully transradial approach (fTR

106 , low complication rates, and no decrease in procedural efficiency.

107 ltimately, it may improve patient safety and procedural efficiency.

108 bdiscipline that combines key principles and procedural elements from the fields of risk communicatio

109 ight, the choice of ablation energy, and the procedural end point of AVNRT ablation did not impact fr

110 Procedural end point of AVNRT ablation had been either S

111 rgeting extra-PV AF sources with the desired procedural end point of termination to sinus rhythm.

112 The procedural end point was AF termination.

113 management errors, two were attributable to procedural events, one was attributable to a diagnostic

114 for review by the occurrence of prespecified procedural events.

115 s, which likely reflect device iteration and procedural evolution, support the use of transcatheter a

116 design characteristics, the impact of other procedural factors cannot be excluded and require furthe

117 Procedural factors indicative of complex CTO interventio

118 ht in meters squared), and other patient and procedural factors, peak postoperative glucose levels of

119 association after adjusting for patient and procedural factors.

120 arly stroke after TAVR included clinical and procedural factors; predictors of later stroke were limi

121 ents with complex CHD have increased risk of procedural failure and atrioventricular block.

122 ent pregnancy and 393 (25.5%) practiced in a procedural field.

123 pressure monitoring may be a useful tool for procedural guidance during transcatheter mitral repair.

124 important role in the initial assessment and procedural guidance, cross-sectional imaging, including

125 dependently associated with in-hospital post-procedural heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and mortali

126 ted post-procedural hs-TnT levels (peak post-procedural hs-TnT >0.014 mug/l; n = 2,721); elevated bas

127 Peak post-procedural hs-TnT findings were not associated with mort

128 assess whether the prognostic value of post-procedural hs-TnT level after elective PCI depends on th

129 undergoing elective PCI, an increase in post-procedural hs-TnT level did not offer prognostic informa

130 : 1.09 to 1.38; p < 0.001) but not peak post-procedural hs-TnT levels (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.28

131 into 4 groups: nonelevated baseline and post-procedural hs-TnT levels (hs-TnT </=0.014 mug/l; n = 742

132 742); nonelevated baseline but elevated post-procedural hs-TnT levels (peak post-procedural hs-TnT >0

133 with nonelevated baseline but elevated post-procedural hs-TnT levels; 50 (16.0%) in patients with el

134 patients with nonelevated baseline and post-procedural hs-TnT levels; 54 (3.8%) in patients with non

135 elective PCI who had baseline and peak post-procedural hs-TnT measurements available.

136 Differences might result from procedural inconsistencies in test battery design, but a

137 nts were randomly assigned to universal, pre-procedural indometacin (n=1297) or risk-stratified, post

138 ndometacin (n=1297) or risk-stratified, post-procedural indometacin (n=1303).

139 In the risk-stratified, post-procedural indometacin group, only patients at predicted

140 universal pre-procedural indometacin or post-procedural indometacin in only high-risk patients, with

141 a computer-generated list) to universal pre-procedural indometacin or post-procedural indometacin in

142 sequently, this may lead to patient harm and procedural inefficiency.

143 s sedation was associated with reductions in procedural inotrope requirement, intensive care unit and

144 ost (19%), medication side effects (9%), and procedural interruption (10%).

145 -based military physicians) with the odds of procedural intervention (carotid endarterectomy or carot

146 The odds of procedural intervention based on treatment system was th

147 ased recommendations regarding the safety of procedural interventions performed either concurrently w

148 butive justice (outcomes of negotiation) and procedural justice (process of negotiation), we introduc

149 s they serve have important implications for procedural justice and the building of police-community

150 e 5-level System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning (SIMPL) Performance scale to assess

151 ible-target training, while hAPP mice showed procedural learning deficits.

152 automaticity, something that can compromise procedural learning in ageing.

153 t supports executive functions competes with procedural learning mechanisms that are important for la

154 frontal Cortex (DLPFC) can improve implicit, procedural learning of word-forms in adults.

155 imaging necessitates understanding them at a procedural level and quantifying the costs of delivering

156 We noted procedural MACE in four (3%) of 158 patients in the OCT

157 The primary safety endpoint was procedural MACE.

158 We thus sought to evaluate the procedural management and in-hospital outcomes of patien

159 Procedural management and in-hospital outcomes were comp

160 well understood whether a preference toward procedural management exists when procedural volume and

161 em were significantly more likely to undergo procedural management for carotid stenosis compared with

162 and clinical factors, the odds of undergoing procedural management were significantly higher for pati

163 s with careful long-term monitoring and peri-procedural management, and (3) to encourage ongoing adhe

164 the optimal consolidation of newly acquired procedural memories.

165 ain called the putamen has a central role in procedural memory consolidation during sleep.

166 Here, to address these issues in procedural memory domain, we used new learning to interf

167 11 SD (95% CI 0.01-0.20, p=0.0319) higher in procedural memory than those given IFA, equivalent to th

168 al intellectual ability, declarative memory, procedural memory, executive function, academic achievem

169 ns assumed to play a role in declarative and procedural memory, provides an anatomical mechanism thro

170 Lower post-procedural minimum lumen and reference vessel diameters

171 of ScT appeared to rapidly increase for post-procedural minimum lumen diameters below 2.4 mm (for the

172 whereas the ViR group had more frequent post-procedural mitral regurgitation moderate or higher (19.4

173 ft ventricular ejection fraction, worse post-procedural mitral regurgitation, moderate or severe lung

174 The risks of procedural mortality and morbidity after coronary artery

175 a role in the regulation of emotions and in procedural motor and emotional memory consolidation.

176 arction (6% vs 1%; p=0.0108), including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (4% vs 1%; p=0.16).

177 in part to non-significant increases in peri-procedural myocardial infarction and device thrombosis w

178 he likelihood of distal embolisation or peri-procedural myocardial infarction during stent implantati

179 ersus 2% (2.88, 1.40-5.90, p=0.0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 16% versus 10% (1.50,

180 CE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary re

181 vessel myocardial infarction, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction, was observed in the Ab

182 There were no peri-procedural or 1-month major adverse cardiac, cerebrovasc

183 dels are modified fee-for-service or address procedural or episodic care, but population models are a

184 fe and well tolerated; no patient had a peri-procedural or major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular e

185 olume ratio of approximately 0.24, the total procedural Os blank is reduced from 6.5 pg (no H2O2) to

186 anterior leaflets allowed for the best post-procedural outcome, ensuring a complete re-establishment

187 oon angioplasty was limited by unpredictable procedural outcomes due to vessel dissection and recoil,

188 We evaluated procedural outcomes in 11,697 blacks and 136,362 whites

189 , yet little is known about the variation in procedural outcomes in community practice.

190 eration devices was associated with improved procedural outcomes in treating patients with pure nativ

191 nd the effect of institutional experience on procedural outcomes nationally are unknown.

192 Procedural outcomes were further assessed for a 10-year

193 intervention (PCI) was developed to improve procedural outcomes.

194 nely prior to PLB reduces the immediate post procedural pain but has no lasting effect and does not i

195 EPIPPAIN 2 (Epidemiology of Procedural PAin In Neonates) is a descriptive prospectiv

196 CANCE STATEMENT Early exposure to repetitive procedural pain in very preterm neonates may disrupt the

197 For patients who could rate recalled procedural pain intensity (n = 56) and pain distress (n

198 hs after hospitalization about: 1) recall of procedural pain intensity and pain distress (on 0-10 num

199 with current pain recalled even greater ICU procedural pain intensity and pain distress scores than

200 udies are needed to assess the impact of ICU procedural pain on post-ICU pain recall, pain status ove

201 Evidence suggests that repetitive neonatal procedural pain precedes long-term alterations in brain

202 an their median (interquartile range) in ICU procedural pain scores (pain intensity: 5 [4-7] vs 3 [2.

203 ving current pain, recalling even higher ICU procedural pain scores and greater traumatic stress when

204 n extremely preterm neonates exposed to more procedural pain.

205 in young neonates may be most vulnerable to procedural pain.

206 f a manufacturer clinical specialist and for procedural parameter and periprocedural complication dat

207 This study evaluated the acute procedural performance and complication rates for all ca

208 us clopidogrel loading dose (LD) in the peri-procedural period among troponin-negative ACS patients u

209 tory-only eptifibatide (an off-label use) as procedural pharmacotherapy for patients undergoing percu

210 nary heart team approach, patient selection, procedural planning, and device implantation have been r

211 are needed to improve patient selection and procedural/postprocedural care to maximize health status

212 Significant procedural predictors were total time in the catheteriza

213 Recommendations on vaccine spacing and procedural preparedness were based on practical necessit

214 , site of injection, route of injection, and procedural preparedness.

215 The procedural profiles and clinical outcomes of the 2 strat

216 AR with MC [P < .05]) and therefore in total procedural radiation dose (20.5 Gy . cm(2) +/- 13.4 for

217 was successful in all patients, resulting in procedural residual mitral regurgitation of grade 2+ or

218 ble therapeutic option with acceptable acute procedural results.

219 on for revascularization but who are at high procedural risk because of patient comorbidities, comple

220 he control group (n = 50), and the mean (SD) procedural risk scores (logistic EuroScores) were 16.4%

221 in these patients requires consideration of procedural risk, expertise and efficacy, and the long-te

222 approach is often advocated based on a lower procedural risk; however, specific patterns of disease m

223 d deliberation over options, listed discrete procedural risks, and did not integrate preferences into

224 Procedural sedation for children undergoing painful proc

225 on with patients, (c) the role of imaging in procedural selection and planning, and (d) the pearls an

226 n injury in an ex vivo model reproducing the procedural sequence of lung transplantation.

227 an important rate of TPV nonimplantation and procedural serious adverse events.

228 found that ASSET training improved resident procedural skills for up to 18 months.

229 ills, diagnostic accuracy, "keeping up," and procedural skills.

230 areer dissatisfaction, particularly those in procedural specialties.

231 r 21 of 40 residents (52%), correct vascular procedural steps plotted against anatomy knowledge (the

232 ed with increased anatomy knowledge, correct procedural steps, and decreased errors from 60% to 19% a

233 ime-consuming (>10 h) and/or require several procedural steps, during which materials can be lost and

234 OCT use led to a change in procedural strategy in 50% of the patients in the OCT-gu

235 Compared with a risk-stratified, post-procedural strategy, pre-procedural administration of re

236 1% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.03), and subsequent lower procedural success (58.3% vs. 79.5%; p = 0.001).

237 conscious sedation was associated with lower procedural success (97.9% versus 98.6%, P<0.001) and a r

238 onfidence interval [CI], 0.77-1.46; P=0.71), procedural success (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84-1.29; P=0.73)

239 Procedural success (provisional 97%, culotte 94%) and ki

240 elet and anticoagulant therapies to optimize procedural success and reduce postprocedural cardiovascu

241 The primary outcomes were acute procedural success and survival to liver transplant (3 m

242 A separate definition of procedural success based on normalization of PA diameter

243 l stenosis was significantly associated with procedural success for biventricular patients according

244 Catheter ablation resulted in complete procedural success in 10 (91%) of 11 group B patients co

245 Acute procedural success of atrial tachycardia ablation in con

246 SAECG can be useful to assess the procedural success of VT ablation.

247 isualization but does not appear to increase procedural success or decrease complications.

248 The investigator-reported procedural success rate in the CTO PCI arm of the trial

249 Procedural success rate was 99.1 +/- 0.8%.

250 A 94% acute procedural success rate was observed and did not differ

251 ave not translated into significant gains in procedural success rates over recent years.

252 Overall technical and procedural success rates were 90% and 89%, respectively,

253 Although procedural success rates were similar by sex, the cumula

254 The rate of procedural success was 76% for definition 1, 86% for def

255 Procedural success was achieved for all (100%) patients.

256 Procedural success was achieved in 99.3% and 96.6% of BR

257 ommercial U.S. experience, it was found that procedural success was achieved in approximately 91% of

258 -world post-FDA approval experience of LAAC, procedural success was high and complication rates were

259 Procedural success was tracked by (1.) in-beam positron-

260 ry data were collected, and 2 definitions of procedural success were pre-specified for patients with

261 ociated with equivalent 30-day mortality and procedural success, but reduced major bleeding and acces

262 Procedural success, in-hospital outcomes, and midterm mo

263 tality, in-hospital and 30-day death/stroke, procedural success, intensive care unit and hospital len

264 mpared with 1999-2004 Western data, rates of procedural success, stroke, and paraplegia appeared simi

265 aracteristics on rates of adverse events and procedural success.

266 fraction of 69+/-7%, were treated with 100% procedural success.

267 assessed patient age/sex, filter dwell time, procedural technical success, the use of advanced techni

268 ects meta-analysis model was used to analyze procedural (technical success, flow-limiting dissection,

269 tions, limiting the extent to which improved procedural technique can reduce readmissions.

270 ed by improved patient and lesion selection, procedural technique, and device iteration.

271 Procedural techniques, outcomes, and in-hospital complic

272 x) and a "tap-and-inject" procedure (Current Procedural Terminology 67015, 67025), a vitrectomy (6703

273 hed for all intravitreal injections (Current Procedural Terminology 67028) performed between 2003 and

274 atients (N = 33,718) with a recorded Current Procedural Terminology code for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

275 1, 2005, and December 31, 2013, with Current Procedural Terminology codes for a subtotal colectomy or

276 igible for inclusion if one of their Current Procedural Terminology codes matched any of the operatio

277 e spending by Medicare as tracked by Current Procedural Terminology codes on intravitreal injections

278 gible patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes, and their medical records

279 Diseases-9th revision diagnosis and Current Procedural Terminology codes, medication lists, and posi

280 itreal anti-VEGF injections based on Current Procedural Terminology codes.

281 riptors, treatment procedures as per Current Procedural Terminology codes; comorbidities as per Inter

282 3 d; P < 0.152) were comparable; the median procedural time (TVAE: 35 minutes vs TGAE: 96 minutes; P

283 r the transvaginal technique with respect to procedural time and conversion rate.

284 that is more difficult resulting in a longer procedural time, but is promising due to the high en-blo

285 utcomes were operator radiation exposure and procedural time.

286 a rapidly evolving field, and approaches to procedural training are not standardized.

287 We describe a novel modular approach to procedural training that considers each procedure as a s

288 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To analyze vitreoretinal procedural trends, which may indicate standard of care a

289 To analyze vitreoretinal procedural trends, which may indicate standard of care a

290 s were excluded from the analysis because of procedural unmasking or no autopsy data, as were 24 case

291 in all patients is more effective than post-procedural use in only high-risk patients to prevent pos

292 ed bleeding risk score (BRS) of clinical and procedural variables.

293 nce toward procedural management exists when procedural volume and physician compensation are linked

294 The relationship between procedural volume and prognosis after percutaneous coron

295 reduction was modified by increases in total procedural volume and radial proportion at the operator

296 al access adoption relates to both the total procedural volume and the proportion of procedures under

297 Protocols outlining minimum procedural volume thresholds should be considered to fac

298 psy and RP volume per urologist and national procedural volume.

299 raphics, tumor characteristics, and hospital procedural volume.

300 Procedural volumes of certifying and recertifying urolog