ライフサイエンスコーパス: revascularization

1 ty, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization).

2 ssel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization).

3 l admission for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization.

4 italization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization.

5 spital complications, but not by the mode of revascularization.

6 ded death, myocardial infarction, and urgent revascularization.

7 in a contemporary clinical trial of surgical revascularization.

8 th, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

9 tudy is to perform a meta-analysis on apical revascularization.

10 appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization.

11 y end point was freedom from repeat coronary revascularization.

12 ed in IRI were not activated after allograft revascularization.

13 ry death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization.

14 rdiovascular death, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization.

15 italization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization.

16 nfarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization.

17 MI (spontaneous and procedure-related), and revascularization.

18 in patients with T1D in need of multivessel revascularization.

19 ath/myocardial infarction (MI)/target vessel revascularization.

20 I, 2-24%) lower risk of death, MI, or repeat revascularization.

21 medical treatment in human subjects without revascularization.

22 ction, vessel-related urgent, and not urgent revascularization.

23 did not influence the benefit from complete revascularization.

24 pplication from simply justifying to guiding revascularization.

25 index </=0.80 or a previous lower extremity revascularization.

26 eered construct as compared with traditional revascularization.

27 type 1 diabetes (T1D) in need of multivessel revascularization.

28 her patients had undergone previous coronary revascularization.

29 th, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization.

30 thrombosis, heart failure, or target vessel revascularization.

31 of the ABI and 57% on the basis of previous revascularization.

32 ferences in myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization.

33 nly 1 of 30 tested patients underwent repeat revascularization.

34 ated myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

35 t of fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization.

36 endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

37 d unstable coronary artery disease requiring revascularization.

38 gical risk, and a phenotype less amenable to revascularization.

39 ) for extracorporeal life support (ECLS) and revascularization.

40 ainly supported by a reduction in subsequent revascularizations.

41 mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularizations.

42 e, but the PTA cohort required twice as many revascularizations.

43 22 of 318 [7.2%]; P = .80) and target vessel revascularization (129 of 1391 [9.7%] vs 34 of 318 [11.4

44 T2MI2007, 6.3% of patients received coronary revascularization, 22% dual-antiplatelet therapy, and 71

45 diovascular event, 8.0% versus 8.5%; P=0.83; revascularization, 3.8% versus 5.9%; P=0.24; and freedom

46 rehospitalizations after peripheral arterial revascularization; 30-day risk-standardized readmission

47 marily as a result of a lower rate of urgent revascularization (4.3% versus 17.2%; P<0.001).

48 for rates of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (5.9% versus 16.7%; P=0.014).

49 .8%; stroke/transient ischemic attack: 1.2%; revascularization: 5.8%).

50 erval, 1.02-2.08; P=0.037) and target vessel revascularization (7.0% versus 2.4%, respectively; hazar

51 ery-only group that did not receive complete revascularization, a finding that translates to 8 and 21

52 23; P<0.0001), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.82; 95% conf

53 al risk factors, imaging findings, and early revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% conf

54 Apical revascularization, adopted by the American Dental Associ

55 However, repeat revascularization after PCI was increased (HR, 1.70; 95%

56 nths revealed a lower risk for target lesion revascularization after PEB angioplasty and stenting as

57 -PCI (Ranolazine in Patients with Incomplete Revascularization after Percutaneous Coronary Interventi

58 s with DM and chronic angina with incomplete revascularization after percutaneous coronary interventi

59 ype of radiotracer or stress agent used, and revascularization after scan (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.7

60 Subsequent rates of coronary angiography and revascularization after stress testing were ascertained.

61 ming, frequency, and type of repeat coronary revascularization among patients receiving BIMA and SIMA

62 There was a higher freedom from repeat revascularization among patients receiving BIMA than amo

63 t-line endovascular treatment for successful revascularization among patients with acute ischemic str

64 Secondary end points included repeat revascularization and a composite of all-cause death, my

65 was associated with a reduced risk of repeat revascularization and an improvement in long-term surviv

66 lammation, histolysis, re-epithelialization, revascularization and cell proliferation.

67 the subtotal occlusion poses a high risk of revascularization and is not beneficial in terms of alle

68 events did not differ significantly between revascularization and medical therapy, either in the CAB

69 peripheral artery disease is elevated after revascularization and related to atherothrombosis and re

70 Clinical outcomes, including target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis, were followed fo

71 oc analysis of the Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarct

72 the HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarct

73 ike tumor features such as tissue repair and revascularization and treat intratumoral heterogeneity.

74 Despite a high rate of early revascularization and use of intra-aortic balloon pump c

75 arterial disease who had peripheral arterial revascularization and were discharged alive between 1 Ja

76 underwent endovascular or surgical therapy (revascularization and/or amputation) and were discharged

77 m any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, and cerebrovascular events at 12 mont

78 pansion, heart failure, reinfarction, repeat revascularization, and death.

79 expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject

80 e, duration of DAPT therapy, completeness of revascularization, and in off-pump CABG.

81 uate the likelihood of coronary angiography, revascularization, and in-hospital mortality before and

82 adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI.

83 exclusion on rates of coronary angiography, revascularization, and mortality among patients with acu

84 s included death from cardiac causes, repeat revascularization, and nonfatal myocardial infarction.

85 ot be enrolled within 30 days of most recent revascularization, and patients with an indication for d

86 e, had had a prior myocardial infarction and revascularization, and presented more frequently with no

87 tes of stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and sternal wound infection between p

88 all-cause mortality; myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke were also analyzed.

89 nfarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and the primary safety outcome was de

90 obotic-assisted surgery; and hybrid coronary revascularization are discussed.

91 for antithrombotic therapy after lower limb revascularization are inconsistent and not always eviden

92 ammary artery (SIMA), data on risk of repeat revascularization are more limited.

93 nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated.

94 ts with critical limb ischemia, the goals of revascularization are to relieve pain, help wound healin

95 s, and total cardiovascular events including revascularization, as well, were recorded during a follo

96 MSC infusion without main renal artery revascularization associated with increased renal tissue

97 However, the high rates of target lesion revascularization associated with use of BMS have led to

98 Aspiration vs Stent Retriever for Successful Revascularization (ASTER) study was a randomized, open-l

99 infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 1 year after the intervention.

100 meter stenosis at 6 months and target lesion revascularization at 24 months.

101 for evaluation of possible AMI, and coronary revascularization at 30 days.

102 infarction, cardiovascular death, and repeat revascularization at 5 years.

103 th, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at long-term follow-up.

104 ion [TVMI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year in 2,008 patients with coro

105 eous myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 24-month follow-up were analyzed u

106 In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascu

107 As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical sce

108 all diabetic patients who underwent coronary revascularization between 2007 and 2014 (n = 4,661, 2,94

109 rtery disease with a clinical indication for revascularization but who are at high procedural risk be

110 resident vascular cells that participate in revascularization, but likely also a reduced ability to

111 It remains unclear whether revascularization by either coronary artery bypass graft

112 nts, defined as death from any cause, repeat revascularization (CABG or percutaneous coronary interve

113 y, the study evaluated the impact of mode of revascularization (CABG vs. PCI with drug-eluting stents

114 ns with a low likelihood of events, in which revascularization can be safely deferred, as opposed to

115 In the example of revascularization choices for diabetic patients who have

116 .4% greater for the endovascular vs the open revascularization cohort.

117 e associated with more favorable outcomes of revascularization compared with medical therapy among pa

118 d outcomes and the effectiveness of coronary revascularization compared with medical therapy in the B

119 rolled based on the previous lower extremity revascularization criterion.

120 infarction, cardiovascular death, and repeat revascularization cumulative incidence was 2.3% (95% con

121 rom that suggested by angiography, including revascularization deferral, is safe in ACS.

122 s the proportion of patients with successful revascularization defined as a modified Thrombolysis in

123 tients undergoing viability testing prior to revascularization during the acute phase.

124 randomized analysis from the FREEDOM (Future REvascularization Evaluation in patients with Diabetes m

125 ine the results of the FREEDOM trial (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes M

126 the generalizability of the FREEDOM (Future REvascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes M

127 (Future REvascularization Evaluation in patients with Diabetes m

128 se therapies after peripheral artery disease revascularization exist, and much of the rationale for t

129 Thus, apical revascularization facilitates tooth-root development but

130 nd exciting approach to promoting endogenous revascularization following cardiac injury.

131 patients with chronic angina and incomplete revascularization following percutaneous coronary interv

132 data suggest that SK1 is important for islet revascularization following transplantation and represen

133 oke preventative strategies, such as carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid stenosis, req

134 rtery stenting are the leading approaches to revascularization for carotid stenosis, yet contemporary

135 d ischemic injury and to improve outcomes of revascularization for human atherosclerotic renal artery

136 emia, major amputation, or urgent peripheral revascularization for ischemia.

137 nwide readmissions after peripheral arterial revascularization for peripheral arterial disease and to

138 pitalization after endovascular and surgical revascularization for peripheral arterial disease.

139 ristics, patients enrolled based on previous revascularization for peripheral artery disease had high

140 n after endovascular or open lower extremity revascularization for propensity-score matched cohorts o

141 At 30-days post-revascularization, for ACS patients the odds ratio for M

142 aire Flow Restoration Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization from January 1, 2010, through December

143 Death occurred in 4 patients in the complete-revascularization group and in 10 patients in the infarc

144 come occurred in 23 patients in the complete-revascularization group and in 121 patients in the infar

145 tients with stable CAD (i.e., MI or coronary revascularization >1 year previously).

146 diac mortality) and secondary outcomes (late revascularization [>90 d after scanning] and primary out

147 y stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR.

148 Patients with a previous revascularization had a mean age of 66 years, 73% were m

149 ristics, patients enrolled based on previous revascularization had similar rates of the primary compo

150 rend was preserved in terms of target vessel revascularization (harzard ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence i

151 rial disease who undergo peripheral arterial revascularization have unplanned readmission within 30 d

152 d ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87) and repeat revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.88

153 mortality, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven revascularization; hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% confiden

154 or a major CVD event (myocardial infarction, revascularization, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, c

155 eriprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD use in all-ca

156 ]; P<0.001), and clinically indicated target revascularization (HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.09]; P=0.03)

157 (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.78), and repeat revascularization (HR: 5.64; 95% CI: 4.67 to 6.82).

158 ificant differences between the 2 methods of revascularization in 1-year follow-up.

159 (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.13), revascularization in 18 and 103 patients (6.1% vs. 17.5%

160 scularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and

161 blood urea nitrogen, and history of coronary revascularization in both data sets (all P<0.05).

162 th the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment

163 Rates of revascularization in New York for cardiac arrest patient

164 sease severity on the outcome after complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment-elevation

165 hysiology and anatomy for decision making on revascularization in patients with stable coronary arter

166 from fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization in ST-segment-elevation myocardial inf

167 myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with and without E

168 s with T1D who underwent a first multivessel revascularization in Sweden from 1995 to 2013.

169 ased rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the index event culprit vessel in p

170 infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization in these studies (mean follow-up, 25 m

171 There were no deaths, AMIs, or coronary revascularizations in either group.

172 l infarction, stroke, coronary or peripheral revascularization, incident heart failure, or atrial fib

173 tcomes with the use of FFR to guide coronary revascularization, including a reduction in cardiac deat

174 The rates of percutaneous revascularization increased similarly at outlier and non

175 l therapy in the BARI-2D (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes) trial.

176 (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes; NCT0

177 Coronary revascularization is an effective means of treating isch

178 Pulpal revascularization is commonly used in the dental clinic

179 Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clin

180 Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for t

181 latelet agents after endovascular peripheral revascularization is extrapolated from percutaneous coro

182 However, repeat revascularization is more common after PCI.

183 patients hospitalized for CLI and undergoing revascularization is readmitted within 30 days.

184 Limb revascularization is recommended to improve function and

185 ctional flow reserve (FFR) to guide coronary revascularization lags despite robust supportive data, p

186 he mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical sc

187 in adults, coronary artery disease requiring revascularization may develop in children because of hom

188 dence interval, -12.4 to -7.9) and unplanned revascularization (mean difference, -5.7; 95% confidence

189 associated with reduced mortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, and heart fail

190 Mortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, heart failure,

191 alculated for BARI-2D patients without prior revascularization (N = 1,550) by angiographic laboratory

192 y stents, such as the risks of target lesion revascularization, neoatherosclerosis, preclusion of lat

193 Clinically driven target lesion revascularization occurred for 77 DCS and 136 BMS patien

194 ent rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target-vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients in the scaffol

195 Revascularization occurred in 82.6% of the early invasiv

196 MVO was a strong predictor of target lesion revascularization occurrence (P=0.017 for log-rank test)

197 er risk presentation significantly predicted revascularization (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence inte

198 Early revascularization of ischemic organs is key to improving

199 artery, the addition of FFR-guided complete revascularization of non-infarct-related arteries in the

200 ry artery in a 1:2 ratio to undergo complete revascularization of non-infarct-related coronary arteri

201 eserve (FFR) (295 patients) or to undergo no revascularization of non-infarct-related coronary arteri

202 lprit lesion only, with the option of staged revascularization of nonculprit lesions, or immediate mu

203 ost-reperfusion syndrome or vasoplegia after revascularization of the allograft.

204 ial infarction with cardiogenic shock, early revascularization of the culprit artery by means of perc

205 of heart regeneration; however, to date, how revascularization of the damaged area happens remains un

206 I) of 0.80 or less or had undergone previous revascularization of the lower limbs.

207 (hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.61]); revascularization offered no additional statistical mort

208 tions; were less likely to have had previous revascularization or carotid/cerebrovascular disease; an

209 s to fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization or infarct-related percutaneous corona

210 % underwent a subsequent peripheral arterial revascularization or lower extremity amputation, 4.6% di

211 ins unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies.

212 0.73, CI, 0.51-1.05; P=0.09), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.0; CI, 0.95-1.05; P=0.94), peri

213 ial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, revascularization, or angina).

214 ization for unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization, or cardiovascular death; 93% of the p

215 omes (death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or cerebrovascular events) independen

216 rome without myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or CHD death.

217 cardiac arrest, thrombolytic therapy, prior revascularization, or missing demographic or angiographi

218 lity, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 48 h after ran

219 eath, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 48 hours.

220 lity, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 48 hours.

221 eath, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis plus GUSTO modera

222 eath, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis) in patients >/=7

223 le patients, 5928 endovascular and 5928 open revascularization patients were included in matched anal

224 Few data are available describing revascularization patterns among these patients in the s

225 lable studies comparing different methods of revascularization (PCI or CABG) against each other or me

226 Clinically indicated elective revascularizations performed within 45 days after primar

227 t MI, CHD events (recurrent MI or a coronary revascularization procedure), and mortality were identif

228 The majority of repeat revascularization procedures were percutaneous coronary

229 In patients who are ineligible for revascularization procedures, there are few therapeutic

230 other half were treated with the traditional revascularization protocol with a blood clot scaffold.

231 as to determine whether endovascular or open revascularization provides an advantageous approach to s

232 er did not result in an increased successful revascularization rate at the end of the procedure.

233 nualized myocardial infarction/target vessel revascularization rate compared with SIHD (p < 0.05).

234 [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87) and repeated revascularization rates (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84) in

235 es of restenosis (P=0.002) and target lesion revascularization rates (P=0.007) were found in favor of

236 imilar at 36 months, event timing and repeat revascularization rates differed by treatment group.

237 Revascularization rates per 100000 beneficiary-years of

238 calculate county-specific risk-standardized revascularization rates.

239 ase, fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization reduced the primary end point (all-cau

240 ates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did

241 Successful revascularization resulted in improvement in Grad (p < 0

242 rt failure; surgical strategies for arterial revascularization, rheumatic and other valvular heart di

243 al infarction (MI); (3) death, MI, or repeat revascularization (RR); and (4) hospitalized bleeding we

244 , 1.65; 95% CI, 1.26-2.17) and target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08-1.78).

245 t and 1-year ICD implantation, stratified by revascularization status during the index MI admission.

246 patients with EF reassessment, regardless of revascularization status.

247 in the primary safety end point between the revascularization strategies (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95%

248 heart disease; however, current therapeutic revascularization strategies are limited to large calibe

249 The present meta-analysis indicates that revascularization strategies are superior to medical tre

250 Between the 2 revascularization strategies, CABG seems more favorable

251 and cardiogenic shock to one of two initial revascularization strategies: either PCI of the culprit

252 mong SIHD patients MACCE was not affected by revascularization strategy (odds ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 0.

253 SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The optimal revascularization strategy for symptomatic lower extremi

254 To understand the effects of revascularization strategy from the patient's perspectiv

255 The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel

256 or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-gui

257 on strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of m

258 major amputation as well as travel time and revascularization strategy; however, the inverse associa

259 ase mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, and heart failure using inver

260 ardial infarction, unstable angina, arterial revascularization, stroke, or cardiovascular death) were

261 major cardiovascular events were lower after revascularization than with medical therapy in the CABG

262 e discharged alive after peripheral arterial revascularization, the 30-day nonelective readmission ra

263 pheral artery disease with a history of limb revascularization, the optimal antithrombotic regimen fo

264 and 5.3%, respectively (P=0.29); for repeat revascularization, the rate was 13.1% and 11.9%, respect

265 rug-coated balloons (DCBs) are a predominant revascularization therapy for symptomatic femoropoplitea

266 Other end points included target lesion revascularization, thrombosis, ipsilateral amputation, b

267 putation and clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 12 months after the procedure.

268 putation and clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 12 months.

269 up of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization through the Dutch population registry,

270 Median onset-to-revascularization time was 202.0 minutes for direct vers

271 infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]).

272 ith less patients with ACS reclassified from revascularization to medical treatment compared with tho

273 s a promising new clinically relevant pulpal revascularization treatment to regenerate human dental p

274 The ART (Arterial Revascularization Trial) was designed to compare surviva

275 ypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial compared outcomes in patients w

276 Target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 3 years was one of the second

277 cipitating stressors, angiographic features, revascularization, use of medication, and in-hospital an

278 The benefits of endovascular revascularization using the contact aspiration technique

279 dium obtained at the time of coronary artery revascularization, ventricular assist device placement,

280 P=0.48), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization was 7.3% for DA+DCB and 8.0% for DCB (

281 , the proportion of patients with successful revascularization was 85.4% (n = 164) in the contact asp

282 , the treatment strategy and completeness of revascularization was determined based on coronary anato

283 ncidence of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization was higher among patients with nonobst

284 ival benefit associated with an endovascular revascularization was more pronounced in patients with c

285 Mode of revascularization was not independently associated with

286 table coronary artery disease and in whom no revascularization was performed, we compared the respect

287 aphy in Multivessel Evaluation 2) in whom no revascularization was performed.

288 The rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization was significantly lower in the DCB coh

289 ted myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) was 5.4% for both devices (upper boun

290 Treatment of Culprit Lesion Only or Complete Revascularization), we randomized 627 ST-segment-elevati

291 guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addres

292 of patients receiving SIMA underwent repeat revascularization, whereas this frequency was 15.1% (n=1

293 Following apical revascularization with 6- to 66-month recalls, root apic

294 nd may predict the effectiveness of coronary revascularization with either coronary artery bypass gra

295 Carotid revascularization with endarterectomy or angioplasty and

296 Revascularization with percutaneous transluminal renal a

297 admitted for acute coronary syndrome and/or revascularization, with >/=1 LRF (body mass index >27 kg

298 thrombotic therapy after peripheral arterial revascularization, with a focus on clinical trial design

299 nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure.

300 angiography, and only 3.1% underwent repeat revascularization within 60 days of stress testing.