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

1 rising mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization).

2 c death, target vessel MI, or symptom-driven target lesion revascularization).

3 ency bypass procedure, disabling stroke, and target lesion revascularization).

4 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization).

5 from binary restenosis or from the need for target-lesion revascularization).

6 infarction related to the target vessel, or target lesion revascularization.

7 The primary end point was target lesion revascularization.

8 high rates of in-stent restenosis and repeat target lesion revascularization.

9 SR, none of them were associated with repeat target lesion revascularization.

10 farction attributed to the target vessel, or target lesion revascularization.

11 myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization.

12 ad an MI event within 7 days of either ST or target lesion revascularization.

13 ; p = 0.02) were identified as predictors of target lesion revascularization.

14 of reduction in the risk of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization.

15 mary efficacy endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

16 ary angiography, and only 9 (2.6%) underwent target lesion revascularization.

17 n-ACS presentation mode at the time of first target lesion revascularization.

18 s were associated with a marked reduction in target-lesion revascularization.

19 duction in clinical restenosis as defined by target-lesion revascularization.

20 ary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.

21 y only if provisional stenting is considered target-lesion revascularization.

22 r follow-up there was a stepwise decrease in target lesion revascularization (11% vs. 19% and 17%, re

23 Angioplasty with PCB versus UCB reduces target lesion revascularization (12.2% versus 27.7%; OR,

24 ent, the repeat-IRT group had lower rates of target lesion revascularization (23.5% versus 54.6%; P<0

25 ow-up of 1.5 years the PES patients had less target lesion revascularization (28% vs. 5%, hazard rati

26 mary end point were driven by a reduction in target lesion revascularization (3.1% versus 8.2%; P < 0

27 versus 2.4%; P<0.0001), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (3.6% versus 6.9%; P<0.0

28 [7.1%] versus 15 [34.9%], P<0.01) as well as target lesion revascularizations (3 [7.1%] versus 12 [27

29 %, respectively; P=0.18), or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (3.0% and 2.5%, respecti

30 ascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002), and target-lesion revascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002)

31 f 382 [0.5%] vs 11 of 365 [3.0%]; P = .009), target lesion revascularization (4 of 382 [1.0%] vs 19 o

32 of reduction in the risk of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (4.1% versus 6.6%; odds

33 nosis (10% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.35), [corrected] target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.37

34 ntly lower 12-month rates of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (4.5% vs. 7.5%; hazard r

35 P<0.001) and for rates of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (5.9% versus 16.7%; P=0.

36 However, neither clinically driven target lesion revascularization (6.3% zotarolimus vs. 3.

37 ry restenosis (63.8% vs. 15.7%, p < 0.0001), target lesion revascularization (66.7% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.

38 ts (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; 7.3% versus 12.8%; haza

39 he MGuard, driven by greater ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (8.6% versus 0.9%; P=0.0

40 vely), MI (2.6%, 3.8% and 2.9%, p = 0.94) or target lesion revascularization (9.0%, 8.3% and 11.5%, p

41 After a median of 13.2 months (9.2-17.6), target lesion revascularization (9.8% versus 10.2%; P=0.

42 CI, 0.06-0.69; P = .01) and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (9 [1.6%] vs 32 [5.7%];

43 on: 1.5% versus 0%, P=0.421; ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization: 9.6% versus 4.4%, hazar

44 e-year mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization after multivessel stenti

45 ow-up at 24 months revealed a lower risk for target lesion revascularization after PEB angioplasty an

46 forward in reducing rates of restenosis and target lesion revascularization after percutaneous coron

47 use was associated with a small increase in target lesion revascularization and a modest reduction i

48 her periprocedural CK-MB release but a lower target lesion revascularization and a trend toward lower

49 al success, major in-hospital complications, target lesion revascularization and long-term (one year)

50 Target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardia

51 Clinical outcomes, including target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis, we

52 assigned to radiation therapy required less target lesion revascularization and target vessel revasc

53 e; secondary end points included the rate of target-lesion revascularization and binary restenosis at

54 l nitinol stent placement was not considered target-lesion revascularization and loss in patency, no

55 Provisional stent placement was considered target-lesion revascularization and loss of primary pate

56 ent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or target lesion revascularization) and Academic Research C

57 m efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myoc

58 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse card

59 device-oriented MACE (cardiac death, MI, and target lesion revascularization), and stent thrombosis a

60 nd points were major adverse cardiac events, target lesion revascularization, and angiographic resten

61 ardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and bleeding).

62 ardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and coronary artery byp

63 Secondary end points were binary restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and definite stent/scaf

64 dary endpoints were angiographic restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardi

65 arction, definite/probable stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardi

66 oints (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) u

67 ith PTA strikingly reduce 1-year restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel occlu

68 l myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization, and the primary safety

69 nt was a 30-day composite of death, emergent target lesion revascularization, angiographic thrombosis

70 However, the high rates of target lesion revascularization associated with use of B

71 mission and death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization at 1 year were evaluated

72 Variables associated with target lesion revascularization at 1 year were explored

73 cidence of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1 year.

74 r effective lumen area increased the risk of target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up (cut

75 that residual dissection was associated with target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up (RR=

76 freedom from restenosis or clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months.

77 lative incidence of major adverse events and target lesion revascularization at 24 months.

78 giographic diameter stenosis at 6 months and target lesion revascularization at 24 months.

79 te of all death, target limb amputation, and target lesion revascularization at 30 days.

80 ective, resulting in markedly lower rates of target lesion revascularization at 4 years, with similar

81 end point was freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 6 months.

82 Target lesion revascularization at one year was 14.5% vs

83 el-related reinfarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at 1 year.

84 ardial infarction [TVMI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year in 2,008 pati

85 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year.

86 he composite end point (death, Q-wave-MI and target lesion revascularization) at 1-year follow-up was

87 h, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 2-year follow-up (ha

88 bosis, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 24-month follow-up w

89 rse events=death, target limb amputation, or target lesion revascularization) at 6 and 12 months.

90 or adverse cardiac events (death, MI, and re-target lesion revascularization) at 6 months (MI versus

91 ts (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 9 and 12 months.

92 l myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at the longest follow-u

93 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) at 1 year.

94 f being in the top 3 treatments based on low target lesion revascularization, but there was no statis

95 tal MI, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization, but there were no diffe

96 myocardial infarction, emergency bypass, or target lesion revascularization by 30 days-was observed

97 < 0.0001), and reduced the 12-month rates of target lesion revascularization by 65% (7.4% vs. 20.9%,

98 = 0.0065), and reduced the one-year rate of target lesion revascularization by 68% (6.2% vs. 19.4%,

99 re-metal stent reduced the 12-month rates of target-lesion revascularization by 73% (4.4% versus 15.1

100 year angiographic follow-up not subjected to target-lesion revascularization by the 6-month angiogram

101 nts through 12 months were clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) and late lumen

102 mary patency, freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), major adverse

103 for major adverse cardiac events and 20% for target-lesion revascularization compared with 36% (P=0.0

104 cquired stent malapposition and related less target lesion revascularization (consistent with less ne

105 c patients were at increased risk for repeat target-lesion revascularization consistently across the

106 th, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization continued to diverge in

107 At 12 months, the absolute difference in target-lesion revascularization continued to increase an

108 myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization), definite/probable sten

109 er effective lumen area, was associated with target lesion revascularization during 1-year follow-up

110 , death, acute myocardial infarction, and/or target lesion revascularization) end point was recorded

111 ral versus selective DES era was $16,000 per target lesion revascularization event avoided, $27,000 p

112 Freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization for the helical compared

113 ints of the study were the 12-month rates of target-lesion revascularization for ischemia (analysis p

114 rval, 0.56 to 0.64), 11.2% versus 17.9%; and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95%

115 confidence interval, 1.03-1.53; P=0.026) and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95%

116 redictor of 1-year repeat revascularization (target lesion revascularization: hazard ratio: 1.34; 95%

117 (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.08; p = 0.23), target lesion revascularization (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64

118 Independent predictors of target lesion revascularization in the deferred lesions

119 ficantly increased rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization in the index event culpr

120 %, 17.6% vs. 17.9%), however, there was less target lesion revascularization in the stent-like group

121 el myocardial infarction and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization in these studies (mean f

122 ES (10.8% vs. 11.6, p = 0.65), despite fewer target lesion revascularizations in patients with EES (2

123 in the rates of angiographic restenosis and target-lesion revascularization in all subgroups examine

124 74 lesions (74%) in the PTA group (P<0.001); target lesion revascularization, in 12 (18%) versus 29 (

125 Over this time period, the incidence of target lesion revascularization increased from 4.1 to 5.

126 ated with IRT compared with placebo had more target lesion revascularization (IRT, 21.6% versus place

127 MI, whereas the more frequent occurrence of target lesion revascularization is associated with a fin

128 tent restenosis (ISR) in patients undergoing target lesion revascularization is well characterized an

129 No patient in the 192Ir group sustained a target-lesion revascularization later than 10 months.

130 Clinically driven target lesion revascularization, major amputation, and t

131 tallic coronary stents, such as the risks of target lesion revascularization, neoatherosclerosis, pre

132 Clinically driven target lesion revascularization occurred for 77 DCS and

133 However, target lesion revascularization occurred less frequently

134 wave MI after PCI hospitalization, or urgent target-lesion revascularization occurred in 40% of place

135 MVO was a strong predictor of target lesion revascularization occurrence (P=0.017 for

136 s were assessed with respect to the need for target-lesion revascularization or nontarget-lesion reva

137 Freedom from death, target lesion revascularization, or any amputation of th

138 with a significant and durable reduction in target lesion revascularization over the 4-year follow-u

139 f cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/target lesion revascularization (P=0.012).

140 n (P=0.01), stent thrombosis (P=0.0006), and target lesion revascularization (P=0.02).

141 point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were nonin

142 and Rutherford class change at 6 months, and target lesion revascularization plus major adverse clini

143 02), due to fewer myocardial infarctions and target lesion revascularization procedures.

144 giographic follow-up underestimates the true target lesion revascularization rate in the Polymer-Base

145 l follow-up revealed one cardiac death and a target lesion revascularization rate of 17.8%.

146 d similar long-term clinical outcome; 1-year target lesion revascularization rate was 26% with ELCA+P

147 ry angiographic restenosis rate was 22%, the target lesion revascularization rate was 26%, and the ta

148 Secondary end points included target-lesion revascularization rate and changes in Ruth

149 essive decreases of restenosis (P=0.002) and target lesion revascularization rates (P=0.007) were fou

150 Total (clinically and non-clinically driven) target lesion revascularization rates at 9 months were 9

151 Target lesion revascularization rates occurred in 8% of

152 h oral agents or insulin had higher one-year target lesion revascularization rates than non-diabetic

153 e, there were no deaths in either group, and target lesion revascularization rates were the same (16.

154 pital outcome, with relatively low long-term target lesion revascularization rates.

155 Target-lesion revascularization rates were 14.7% and 44.

156 The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent t

157 infarction (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.26-2.17) and target lesion revascularization (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08-

158 n, emergent coronary artery bypass grafting, target lesion revascularization, stroke, or stent thromb

159 rdiac events, driven by a lower incidence of target lesion revascularization/target vessel revascular

160 m, in-stent late loss correlated better with target-lesion revascularization than in-segment late los

161 Other end points included target lesion revascularization, thrombosis, ipsilateral

162 limb major amputation and clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 12 months after

163 limb major amputation and clinically driven target lesion revascularization through 12 months.

164 control stent had strikingly lower rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (3.9% vs. 16.0%, p

165 3% vs. 5.4%, p = 1.00), clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.0% vs. 6.5%, p

166 men had higher unadjusted one-year rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.6% vs. 3.2%, p

167 ials; n = 2,422) similar point estimates for target lesion revascularization (TLR) (PES: 8.6%, 95% CI

168 year rates were: mortality 4.4%, MI 2.9% and target lesion revascularization (TLR) 7.4%.

169 ow-up demonstrating significant decreases in target lesion revascularization (TLR) and angiographic r

170 Restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel

171 ath, definite stent thrombosis, and ischemic target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel

172 apy trials who underwent repeat percutaneous target lesion revascularization (TLR) because of resteno

173 s defined using three different definitions: target lesion revascularization (TLR) beyond 30 days, ta

174 mg and 5 mg-in achieving low rates of repeat target lesion revascularization (TLR) in de novo native

175 ocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in the per-protoco

176 Target lesion revascularization (TLR) occurred in 15 of

177 Target lesion revascularization (TLR) occurred in 19 pat

178 Repeat target lesion revascularization (TLR) occurred in 28 pat

179 atients assigned to clinical follow-up only, target lesion revascularization (TLR) occurred in 6.6% o

180 ry outcome measure was the clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at 9 months.

181 ng mean late loss was associated with higher target lesion revascularization (TLR) rates (P<0.001).

182 Target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 14.6% for 1 or

183 At one-year follow-up, target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 16.6% in diabe

184 At one-year follow-up, target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 19.4% for grou

185 During follow-up, target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 28% in IDDM, s

186 Rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were 21.5% for the

187 m all causes, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR), among patients tr

188 death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and a composite o

189 ency and timing of staged revascularization, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and other nontarg

190 rdial infarction (MI), and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), compared with dat

191 g well-known risk factors for restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR), risk groups were

192 The primary end point was 12-month target lesion revascularization (TLR)-free survival.

193 ed: 1) death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR); and 2) major blee

194 ifferences in 4-year death (12% versus 13%), target lesion revascularization (TLR, 13 versus 17%, P=0

195 However, the target-lesion revascularization (TLR) rate was 20.2% for

196 iac deaths, 4 myocardial infarctions, and 18 target-lesion revascularizations (TLR; 12 percutaneous t

197 binary restenosis, and clinical recurrence (target lesion revascularization [TLR]) after coronary st

198 ocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), with significant

199 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]).

200 imilar safety outcomes and clinically driven target lesion revascularization to 2 years.

201 At 5 years, 53 patients without target lesion revascularization underwent final imaging.

202 During follow-up (18 months), target lesion revascularization was 11% in multiple SVG

203 During follow up, target lesion revascularization was 15% in multivessel a

204 The rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization was 2.4% in the DCB arm

205 After two years, target lesion revascularization was 5.8% and 21.3% in SE

206 Target lesion revascularization was 7% (95% CI, 3% to 14

207 7.6% for DCB (P=0.48), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization was 7.3% for DA+DCB and

208 Freedom from target lesion revascularization was 84.6% for Viabahn (9

209 years, in sirolimus versus control patients, target lesion revascularization was 9.4% versus 24.2% (p

210 Freedom from target lesion revascularization was 96.4% versus 81.0% (

211 rrence of death or MI within 7 days of ST or target lesion revascularization was assessed.

212 At 1-year follow-up, target lesion revascularization was more common in lesio

213 btained in all patients at 21 +/- 10 months: target lesion revascularization was needed in 30 patient

214 Target lesion revascularization was needed in 5 radiothe

215 /=1 Rutherford category without the need for target lesion revascularization was observed in 35 of 45

216 Target lesion revascularization was performed in 290 BMS

217 Target lesion revascularization was performed in 425 pat

218 At 270 days, target lesion revascularization was reduced in diabetic

219 Target lesion revascularization was required in 19.2% (2

220 Target lesion revascularization was required in 2 of 10

221 In 3 years of follow-up, target lesion revascularization was significantly less i

222 The rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization was significantly lower

223 Target-lesion revascularization was 23%.

224 The only independent predictor of target-lesion revascularization was a larger overall ath

225 then followed up for at least 9 months, and target-lesion revascularization was assessed.

226 ccess--lumen dimensions were larger and late target-lesion revascularization was lower in lesions tre

227 ring the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patient

228 Target-lesion revascularization was reduced from 18.9% t

229 Target-lesion revascularization was required in 3.0 perc

230 At 3-year follow-up, target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower

231 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower

232 Target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower

233 et vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) was 5.4% for both devic

234 ombined end point of death, reinfarction, or target-lesion revascularization) was recorded until 4 mo

235 l myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was the primary end poi

236 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization, was significantly lower

237 At 9 months, clinical restenosis, defined as target-lesion revascularization, was 4.1% in the sirolim

238 ber of events and 9-month rates for ischemic target lesion revascularization were 27 (13.9%) vs 12 (6

239 ission, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization were compared at 2 years

240 Rates of target lesion revascularization were greater for PVI tha

241 When patients with a target lesion revascularization were included, luminal l

242 .3% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.284), rates of 12-month target lesion revascularization were similar (4.5% vs. 3

243 The results of binary restenosis and target lesion revascularization were similar.

244 The 4-year rates of target-lesion revascularization were markedly reduced in

245 nary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year

246 3.6 patients avoided the need for subsequent target lesion revascularization, when compared with pati

247 myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization, whereas no significant

248 Two-year freedom from target lesion revascularization with primary DES placeme

249 r, a signal toward increased ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS was observed.

250 ested a signal toward higher ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization with BRS.

251 h a more common secondary end point, such as target lesion revascularization, with the aim to increas

252 (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed

253 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 12 months.

254 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 2 years.