ライフサイエンスコーパス: quantitative coronary angiography

1 defined as stenosis >/=50% luminal diameter (quantitative coronary angiography).

2 Significant stenosis was defined as >50% by quantitative coronary angiography.

3 e stenosis on FFR, especially in relation to quantitative coronary angiography.

4 lesion was assessed by FFR and 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography.

5 ary artery disease (CAD) as defined by using quantitative coronary angiography.

6 stented coronary segment using 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography.

7 t was 6-month in-stent late loss measured by quantitative coronary angiography.

8 likelihood versus disease status defined by quantitative coronary angiography.

9 osis in 1 or more major coronary arteries by quantitative coronary angiography.

10 Fermi function deconvolution was compared to quantitative coronary angiography.

11 in-segment restenosis at 12-month follow-up quantitative coronary angiography.

12 erosclerosis by intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography.

13 The coronary angiograms were analyzed using quantitative coronary angiography.

14 hods were calculated relative to findings at quantitative coronary angiography.

15 giograms in the percent stenosis measured by quantitative coronary angiography.

16 minimal lumen diameter (MLD) was measured by quantitative coronary angiography.

17 sion of coronary atherosclerosis assessed by quantitative coronary angiography.

18 cise session, and 44 patients had subsequent quantitative coronary angiography.

19 s evaluated for the type of restenosis using quantitative coronary angiography.

20 of stenosis severity with computer-assisted quantitative coronary angiography.

21 llow-up coronary angiograms were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography.

22 y Doppler and coronary artery diameter using quantitative coronary angiography.

23 as evaluated at baseline and at 2 years with quantitative coronary angiography.

24 was lower for the bioresorbable scaffold by quantitative coronary angiography (1.15 mm vs 1.46 mm, p

25 sel segments were individually analyzed with quantitative coronary angiography: 1) the "stent," 2) th

26 By quantitative coronary angiography, 331 patients in the S

27 Blinded quantitative coronary angiography analyses of percent di

28 ts of coronary arterial stenosis severity by quantitative coronary angiography and (b) invasive measu

29 (2.9+/-0.4 versus 2.7+/-0.5 mm, P<0.001) by quantitative coronary angiography and a larger minimal s

30 line coronary blood flow was determined with quantitative coronary angiography and an intracoronary D

31 Six-month quantitative coronary angiography and clinical follow-up

32 coronary artery and vein graft stenoses with quantitative coronary angiography and core laboratory pa

33 cross-sectional area (CSA) was determined by quantitative coronary angiography and coronary blood flo

34 of TIMI Grade 3 flow, all patients underwent quantitative coronary angiography and distal Doppler cor

35 An independent core laboratory performed quantitative coronary angiography and evaluated all pres

36 points as well as efficacy at 1 month using quantitative coronary angiography and histomorphometry.

37 nderwent coronary reactivity assessment with quantitative coronary angiography and intracoronary Dopp

38 r resistance were calculated on the basis of quantitative coronary angiography and intracoronary Dopp

39 Optimal stent deployment assessed by quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultr

40 Quantitative coronary angiography and intravascular ultr

41 expansion was assessed in all patients using quantitative coronary angiography and serial IVUS imagin

42 the percent coronary stenosis measured using quantitative coronary angiography and velocity reserve u

43 lculated from the diameter, as measured with quantitative coronary angiography, and flow velocity, as

44 Clinical characteristics, quantitative coronary angiography, and intravascular ult

45 nt change in CAD (%deltaCAD) was measured by quantitative coronary angiography, and percent change in

46 Restenosis was determined by quantitative coronary angiography at 6 months.

47 e compared in estrogen users and nonusers by quantitative coronary angiography at 6-month follow-up.

48 ms was evaluated by a consensus panel and by quantitative coronary angiography (average per-subject c

49 ypass surgery, both the consensus panel- and quantitative coronary angiography-based end points of co

50 y Doppler, and luminal diameter, measured by quantitative coronary angiography, before and after intr

51 a Syndrome Evaluation (WISE) study underwent quantitative coronary angiography, blood measurements of

52 Quantitative coronary angiography compared late lumen lo

53 Despite similar inclusion criteria, quantitative coronary angiography-determined baseline le

54 -contrast doses, respectively, compared with quantitative coronary angiography (diameter stenosis > o

55 However, quantitative coronary angiography does not provide a fun

56 stenosis by visual estimation (DSVE) and by quantitative coronary angiography (DSQCA) was compared w

57 esions (diameter stenosis <50% [mean 44%] by quantitative coronary angiography) from the Sirolimus-co

58 Comparison to quantitative coronary angiography (>/=50%) yielded a pre

59 Previous studies using quantitative coronary angiography have demonstrated that

60 roving minimum lumen diameter as measured by quantitative coronary angiography in coronary disease pa

61 ex artery (LCx) (n = 29) were evaluated with quantitative coronary angiography in order to determine

62 ex, requiring invasive techniques, including quantitative coronary angiography, intracoronary flow ve

63 adjunctive invasive diagnostic method among quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultraso

64 o underwent serial invasive imaging, such as quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultraso

65 s underwent serial invasive imaging, such as quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultraso

66 Postprocedural assessment using quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultraso

67 essel coronary stenosis (group II) underwent quantitative coronary angiography, MCE, and CBF velocity

68 pg/ml had tighter culprit vessel stenosis on quantitative coronary angiography (median stenosis 76% v

69 mpared to FFR (n = 44 coronary segments) and quantitative coronary angiography (n = 108 segments) in

70 usion plethysmography, Doppler flow wire and quantitative coronary angiography, pressure wire, and th

71 The validity of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) after stent plac

72 ine coronary blood flow was determined using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and an intracoro

73 We prospectively performed quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and intravascula

74 Complete quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and IVUS were ob

75 predefined reference standards were combined quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and single-photo

76 lesions with an independent assessment using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in 175 randomly

77 The quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) reference diamet

78 e CAD, defined as >/=50% luminal stenosis by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

79 ial (>/= 50%) stenoses was assessed by using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

80 ere evaluated for coronary stenosis based on quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

81 ng multislice computed tomography (MSCT) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

82 ransplant recipients within 6 +/- 11 days of quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

83 ll as by a qualitative scale and compared to quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

84 intravascular coronary ultrasound (IVUS) and quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

85 ary stenosis was assessed by core laboratory quantitative coronary angiography (QCA).

86 aphy (normal fractional flow reserve >0.8 or quantitative coronary angiography [QCA] showing no perce

87 of 525 patients were enrolled with completed quantitative coronary angiography, quantitative coronary

88 sults of conventional manual analysis, using quantitative coronary angiography results as a reference

89 n 91 consecutive patients with stents before quantitative coronary angiography, the reference standar

90 In comparison to computer-assisted quantitative coronary angiography, the sensitivity and s

91 In patients who underwent computer-assisted quantitative coronary angiography, the sensitivity and s

92 his report used intravascular ultrasound and quantitative coronary angiography to explore the relatio

93 FFR and quantitative coronary angiography values were known; how

94 ce of obstructive coronary artery disease by quantitative coronary angiography was 68%.

95 is of more than 50% narrowing in diameter at quantitative coronary angiography was determined by usin

96 Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at basel

97 Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at basel

98 In 287 subjects, quantitative coronary angiography was performed at basel

99 In the ACUITY trial, 3-vessel quantitative coronary angiography was performed in a for

100 serve </=0.80 or diameter stenosis >/=80% on quantitative coronary angiography was used as reference

101 Quantitative coronary angiography was used to define ste

102 Quantitative coronary angiography was used to study epic

103 putational FFR, coronary CT angiography, and quantitative coronary angiography were evaluated against

104 acy of angiography by visual estimate and by quantitative coronary angiography when compared with FFR

105 on (r = -0.26), with a weaker correlation of quantitative coronary angiography with myocardial oxygen

106 reased from 0.16+/-0.18 to 0.27+/-0.20 mm on quantitative coronary angiography, with an increase in n