ライフサイエンスコーパス: target vessel revascularization

1 (MACE: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization).

2 th, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization).

3 all-cause death, AMI recurrance, stroke, and target vessel revascularization).

4 ath, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization).

5 e of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization).

6 of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

7 farction (MI), definite stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization.

8 s myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization.

9 as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

10 mposite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

11 site of death, myocardial infarction, or any target vessel revascularization.

12 ch included death/myocardial infarction (MI)/target vessel revascularization.

13 XUS Liberte versus TAXUS Express for 9-month target vessel revascularization.

14 was death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularization.

15 There was no association between MEDS and target vessel revascularization.

16 ter PCI with reduced rates of restenosis and target vessel revascularization.

17 arction, stent thrombosis, heart failure, or target vessel revascularization.

18 respect to death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

19 inical restenosis, as judged by the need for target vessel revascularization.

20 y) phase for death, reinfarction, and urgent target vessel revascularization.

21 (0.32 [0.18-0.50]) are associated with lower target vessel revascularization.

22 rolimus-eluting stent (0.36 [0.11-0.86]) for target vessel revascularization.

23 get vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

24 ts: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

25 of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

26 sting of cardiac death, nonfatal AMI, or any target vessel revascularization.

27 of these patients will still require repeat target-vessel revascularization.

28 t was due entirely to the decreased need for target-vessel revascularization.

29 The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization.

30 non-target vessels, and clinically indicated target-vessel revascularization.

31 nfarction, 1.27; and hazard ratio for urgent target-vessel revascularization, 1.26), and the differen

32 391 [6.7%] vs 22 of 318 [7.2%]; P = .80) and target vessel revascularization (129 of 1391 [9.7%] vs 3

33 or mortality rate (0.6% versus 1.6%; P=.14), target-vessel revascularization (17.1% versus 19.7%; P=.

34 CI: 0.26 to 2.18, p = 0.6) and the need for target vessel revascularization (2% vs. 6%; HR: 0.32: 95

35 cardiac death (0.3% versus 0.3%; P=1.0) and target vessel revascularization (2.9% versus 3.0%; P=1.0

36 rdial infarctions (0% versus 1.1%, P=0.007), target-vessel revascularizations (2.4% versus 5.8%, P=0.

37 .1% versus 19.6%; P<0.0001), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (20.4% versus 14.0% vers

38 ure (death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization, 21.1% versus 24.8%; P=.

39 4.3% versus 3.8%; P=0.0007), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (22.8% versus 13.0%; P=0

40 hic restenosis (27% versus 56%, P=0.002) and target vessel revascularization (26% versus 68%, P<0.001

41 (34% vs. 71%, p < 0.0001), driven by reduced target vessel revascularization (27% vs. 71%, p < 0.0001

42 and major adverse cardiac events, including target vessel revascularization (29.4% versus 61.3%; P<0

43 , stent thrombosis (2.1% vs. 0.4%, P=0.002), target-vessel revascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002)

44 rel vs. 7.4% for prasugrel; P<0.001), urgent target-vessel revascularization (3.7% vs. 2.5%; P<0.001)

45 0.42 to 0.96, p = 0.03), a trend toward less target vessel revascularization (31% vs. 15%, hazard rat

46 %, P:=0.04), and adverse cardiac events plus target vessel revascularization (32% versus 14%, P:=0.05

47 rval [CI], 0.24-0.86; P = .01); for ischemic target vessel revascularization, 34 (17.5%) vs 20 (10.5%

48 4%) including death (9%), Q-wave MI (9%) and target vessel revascularization (36%).

49 ompared with BMS, each DES reduced long-term target-vessel revascularization (39%-61%), but the magni

50 2 [1.0%] vs 19 of 365 [5.2%]; P = .001), and target vessel revascularization (4 of 382 [1.0%] vs 19 o

51 ce interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.83; P=0.002) and target-vessel revascularization (5.8% vs. 8.7%; hazard r

52 e (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization; 6% vs. 8%; hazard ratio

53 confidence interval, 1.02-2.08; P=0.037) and target vessel revascularization (7.0% versus 2.4%, respe

54 ial infarction (8.7% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.01) and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.00

55 range 12.8 to 50.9 months), 13.1% underwent target vessel revascularization, 71.4% were alive, and 7

56 rtality (2.6 versus 0%, P<0.01) and need for target vessel revascularization (8 versus 2%, P=0.03) we

57 to 0.98), mainly driven by a lower need for target vessel revascularization (8% vs. 16%; p = 0.035).

58 was associated with a lower rate of repeated target-vessel revascularization (8.1 percent) than was s

59 The primary end point was the rate of target-vessel revascularization 9 months after the study

60 red less target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization (9 [13.8%] and 17 [26.2%

61 difference in major adverse cardiac events (target vessel revascularization, acute myocardial infarc

62 .86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.97); target vessel revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio,

63 erval, 1.69-3.23; P<0.0001), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio,

64 Abciximab reduced target vessel revascularization among nondiabetic patien

65 event rate of unstable angina, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization and death from all cause

66 Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year rates of target vessel revascularization and recurrent SCAD were

67 Although adverse clinical outcomes including target-vessel revascularization and bleeding events were

68 ty and in-hospital myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization) and in-hospital major b

69 Efficacy (target vessel revascularization) and safety (death, myoc

70 e angina, repeat coronary revascularization (target vessel revascularization), and stroke at 1 year.

71 peat revascularization (urgent or elective), target vessel revascularization, and a composite of deat

72 nt of death, major stroke, major amputation, target vessel revascularization, and bypass) according t

73 econdary endpoints include amputation rates, target vessel revascularization, and changes in Rutherfo

74 of off-label and untested use, 1-year repeat target vessel revascularization, and composite of death,

75 tality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI.

76 Unplanned revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and major bleeding not

77 l endpoint consisted of death, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization, and new congestive hear

78 rdiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke (MACE).

79 ion (MI), nonfatal MI requiring readmission, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revas

80 ienced lower rates of death/MI, nonfatal MI, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revas

81 point (death, myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, and thrombotic bailout

82 d point of the study was the ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization as detected with myocard

83 infarction (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.17-0.54) and target vessel revascularization at 1 year (OR, 0.54; 95%

84 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 1 year after the inte

85 The incidence of target vessel revascularization at 1 year was 30.5%, 18.

86 mposite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months) occurred i

87 d point of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months.

88 ce the combined risk of death, MI, or urgent target vessel revascularization at 28 days (reduction, 1

89 r of major adverse cardiovascular events and target vessel revascularization at 3 years.

90 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days by intention

91 ncidence of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days, occurred in

92 e of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularization at 48 h or 30 days.

93 Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 9 months.

94 myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 year.

95 myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 year.

96 h, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization at 30 days.

97 The rate of ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at nine months was reduc

98 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at the 1-year follow-up.

99 re (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 1 year.

100 of death, reinfarction, stroke, or ischemic target vessel revascularization) at 3-year follow-up in

101 events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) at 6 months.

102 re (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months postprocedu

103 ts (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months.

104 death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) at maximum follow-up (m

105 E) (death, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) at six months between g

106 percent vs. 16.9 percent, P=0.02) or needed target-vessel revascularization because of ischemia (7.7

107 of death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, or target-vessel revascularization because of ischemia occu

108 ficantly reduced the risk of ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, but have been associate

109 ization by 65% (7.4% vs. 20.9%, p = 0.0008), target vessel revascularization by 53% (11.3% vs. 24%, p

110 benefited from DES with lower risk of repeat target vessel revascularization by percutaneous coronary

111 zation by 73% (4.4% versus 15.1%, P<0.0001), target-vessel revascularization by 62% (7.1% versus 17.1

112 The primary end point, ie, clinically driven target-vessel revascularization by 8 months, was observe

113 es acute angiographic results, and decreases target vessel revascularization compared to PTCA alone.

114 and bleeding and a significant reduction in target vessel revascularization compared with bare metal

115 y shown to reduce the risk of restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared with bare metal

116 stent restenosis and the need for subsequent target vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal

117 Target vessel revascularization, defined as clinically d

118 post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombos

119 The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombos

120 ot significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombos

121 et vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, did not differ between

122 outcomes of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization during the index admissi

123 h, recurrent myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularization (efficacy end point), ma

124 At 1 year, the rate of ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization for DES and BMS groups w

125 , recurrent ischemia (3.8%) and predischarge target vessel revascularization for ischemia (1.3%).

126 cular events, including death, reinfarction, target-vessel revascularization for ischemia, and stroke

127 is, a strong trend was preserved in terms of target vessel revascularization (harzard ratio, 1.55; 95

128 4-2.00; P=0.0002) and 3-year ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95%

129 1.34; 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 1.70; target vessel revascularization: hazard ratio: 1.40; 95%

130 ifference in periprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD

131 P=0.54), with a significant 55% reduction in target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37

132 rction (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.97), and target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.48

133 (OR 7.14, 95% CI 3.28 to 15.5) and ischemic target vessel revascularization (I-TVR) (OR 15.0, 95% CI

134 incidence of target lesion revascularization/target vessel revascularization in both genders.

135 luting stents (DES) might reduce the rate of target vessel revascularization in comparison with bare-

136 andomized trials have shown that DES prevent target vessel revascularization in selected patients, bu

137 cular events, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with

138 IRT, 21.6% versus placebo, 4.7%; P=0.04) and target vessel revascularization (IRT, 21.5% versus place

139 rate of death, reinfarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, major bleeding, sepsis,

140 ined as freedom from target limb amputation, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction,

141 o difference in bleeding, rehospitalization, target-vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction,

142 -cause death, any myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 36.9% for PF

143 Target vessel revascularization occurred in 7.4% at 1 ye

144 up (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24-1.34; P =.19) and target vessel revascularization occurred in 8.6% of the

145 Although target vessel revascularization occurred less often in D

146 cumulative event rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target-vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients

147 cardiac events (cardiac death, MI, or repeat target vessel revascularization) occurred in 16.8% of X-

148 ved vessel flow and does not protect against target vessel revascularization or recurrent SCAD.

149 events (death, reinfarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization or stroke; 29.9% versus

150 ar events (OR, 0.73, CI, 0.51-1.05; P=0.09), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.0; CI, 0.95-1.05;

151 ospital (composite of reinfarction, ischemic target vessel revascularization, or death, as well as th

152 ath, recurrent myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, or major bleeding (net

153 ardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, target vessel revascularization, or major hemorrhage.

154 tes of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis.

155 predictors of cost and selectively examining target vessel revascularization, or those without prior

156 eath, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization, or reocclusion 1 year a

157 s were noted for recurrent MI (p = 0.11) and target vessel revascularization (p = 0.06).

158 rtality (p = 0.57), recurrent MI (p = 0.32), target vessel revascularization (p = 0.19), or final inf

159 on, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters.

160 = 0.004), mainly driven by a higher rate of target vessel revascularization (PF-PES: 35.7%; PB-PES:

161 Stenting likely decreases the need for target-vessel revascularization procedures in diabetic p

162 due entirely to differences in the rates of target-vessel revascularization (ranging from 15.7 perce

163 ntly higher annualized myocardial infarction/target vessel revascularization rate compared with SIHD

164 one year was 14.5% vs. 13.8% (p = 0.69), and target vessel revascularization rate was 19.6% vs. 17.3%

165 sion revascularization rate was 26%, and the target vessel revascularization rate was 34%; all rates

166 roximal LAD subgroup (n = 126), the one-year target vessel revascularization rate was 7.9% with the T

167 h a >42% probability that EES had the lowest target-vessel revascularization rate.

168 6 BMS), the risk-adjusted mortality, MI, and target vessel revascularization rates at 3 years were 17

169 ital major adverse cardiac events and 1-year target vessel revascularization rates have declined by a

170 on rates were 2.6% and 12.2% (p = 0.03), and target vessel revascularization rates were 9.2% and 20%

171 chromium-EES, SES, and BES also having lower target-vessel revascularization rates than PES.

172 %; P=0.33) and with significant reduction in target vessel revascularization (risk difference, -8.3%;

173 ompared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06;

174 osite of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, target-vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, signi

175 site of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, and major bleed

176 t was defined as death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious blee

177 rt-term (</= 1 year) and long-term efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascula

178 te of death and myocardial infarction and in target vessel revascularization than diabetics assigned

179 tes of mortality, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization than BMS treatment in si

180 convey prognostic information on subsequent target vessel revascularizations (TLR).

181 larization (66.7% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.0001) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (70.6% vs. 22.9%,

182 registries; n = 10,156), point estimates for target vessel revascularization (TVR) (PES: 5.8%, 95% CI

183 udy assessed the geographical differences in target vessel revascularization (TVR) after percutaneous

184 erest included death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and a combined end

185 troke was evaluated, as was the incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and non-TVR during

186 present study was to determine the rates of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and to determine p

187 patients had a significantly higher rate of target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year (adjuste

188 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year (adjuste

189 Target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 3 years was one

190 Ischemic target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 30 days occurre

191 e of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 30 days, compar

192 h, reinfarction, or any (urgent or elective) target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 6 months by int

193 ts, 30-day major adverse cardiac events, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 6 to 9 months.

194 were death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 9 months.

195 incidence of repeat in-stent restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at follow-up was d

196 sion revascularization (TLR) beyond 30 days, target vessel revascularization (TVR) beyond 30 days, an

197 ness was defined as the incremental cost per target vessel revascularization (TVR) event avoided and

198 al hemoglobin A1c (A1c) and the incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) in diabetic patien

199 6 +/- 1.80 vs. 8.09 +/- 1.90 mm2, p = 0.36), target vessel revascularization (TVR) rate at nine-month

200 s, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates were similar

201 ac death/myocardial infarction (MI), MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) than BMS and lower

202 nts, had significantly lower rates of 1-year target vessel revascularization (TVR) than BMS, with SES

203 failed radiation, the mean time to the first target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 173 +/- 127 da

204 At 1 year follow-up, the incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 53% in the PTC

205 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR) was analyzed as ti

206 g cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite sten

207 arction (MI), combined death or nonfatal MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and procedure cos

208 type for death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombo

209 of death, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR), and unplanned GP

210 restenosis, as assessed by the need for late target vessel revascularization (TVR), is unknown.

211 ) on the frequency of stent thrombosis (ST), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarc

212 g cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis,

213 ardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR).

214 group and death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR).

215 of the three analyzed segments in predicting target vessel revascularization (TVR).

216 cluded death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR).

217 ndency for less frequent need for subsequent target vessel revascularization (TVR, 21% versus 38%, P=

218 infarction (AMI), which necessitates repeat target-vessel revascularization (TVR) in approximately 2

219 site end point of death, MI, ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization (TVR), or disabling stro

220 -month death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularization (TVR).

221 death (7.6% versus 3.0%, P<0.001), ischemic target-vessel revascularization (TVR; 16.7% versus 12.1%

222 death, myocardial infarction [MI], or urgent target vessel revascularization [TVR]) was lower among c

223 6-month event-free survival rate of 78% (six target vessel revascularizations [TVRs], four non-TVRs).

224 The composite of death, MI, or target vessel revascularization was 14.2% in eptifibatid

225 The 1-year rate of target vessel revascularization was 5.0% in DES and 9.2%

226 of death, myocardial infarction, and urgent target vessel revascularization was 5.4%, and Thrombolys

227 n rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization was identified in patien

228 Conversely, target vessel revascularization was reduced by stent/pla

229 However, target vessel revascularization was reduced in nondiabet

230 er with tirofiban, survival was similar, and target vessel revascularization was reduced, which trans

231 ons occurred among patients with stents, and target vessel revascularization was required in only one

232 The 1-year rate of target vessel revascularization was significantly higher

233 The 5-year incidence of target vessel revascularization was significantly lower

234 At 9 months, target-vessel revascularization was 9.1% in the TAXUS gr

235 The rate of target-vessel revascularization was higher in hospitals

236 including death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization was observed in 60 (28.7

237 ave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) was decreased 59% in th

238 dpoint (death, myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization) was determined.

239 of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) was significantly reduc

240 The rates of target vessel revascularization were 13.4% versus 18.3%

241 standard use, significantly higher rates of target vessel revascularization were associated with off

242 ndependent predictors of the ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization were BMS implantation (o

243 procedure-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were seen in 15.8% in th

244 Rates of target lesion and target vessel revascularization were significantly highe

245 ic target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization were significantly incre

246 nonfatal myocardial infarction and need for target vessel revascularization were similar among patie

247 spective rates for myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization were 8.3% versus 10.3% (

248 The late rates of target-vessel revascularization were reduced with all DE

249 of death, myocardial infarction, and urgent target vessel revascularization) were prospectively moni

250 ial infarction, stent thrombosis, and urgent target vessel revascularization, were observed with the

251 nstrated marked and comparable reductions in target vessel revascularization with DES compared with B

252 incidence of ST, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization with second-generation D

253 atistically significant reduction in rate of target vessel revascularization, with the point estimate

254 e of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularization within 14 days; and phar

255 h, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization within 9 months and was

256 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-vessel revascularization within 2 years.

257 ted with substantial decrease in the risk of target vessel revascularization without compromising saf

258 lower incidence of myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization without increased incide

259 e highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target-vessel revascularization without an increase in a

260 ficacy at 5 years in terms of a reduction in target vessel revascularization, without an increase in