ライフサイエンスコーパス: ST segment elevation

1 udin regimen in ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation.

2 The MIs included 28 (19%) with ST-segment elevation.

3 with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation.

4 iac arrest is uncertain for patients without ST-segment elevation.

5 rdiac arrest, particularly in the absence of ST-segment elevation.

6 n on the basis of the presence or absence of ST-segment elevation, a century-old technology.

7 tion, and presented more frequently with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome compared wi

8 syndrome (25%), which consisted of both non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (14%) and S

9 ctive invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS)

10 In patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS),

11 ease and stable ischaemic heart disease, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome or ST-segme

12 ministration strategies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing

13 ein IIb/IIIa Inhibition in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial.

14 e key in the management of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, the optima

15 s consisting of patients admitted with a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, we constru

16 A total of 8,404 patients, with or without ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, were rando

17 ein IIb/IIIa Inhibition in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT0008989

18 compared with prasugrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS)

19 isk of adverse outcomes versus men after non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS)

20 concomitant clopidogrel presenting with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS)

21 myocardial infarction [STEMI], n = 399; non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes [NSTE-ACS]

22 Non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes include un

23 (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.69-1.04]; P=0.11); non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (RR, 0.84 [

24 esions; (3) patients who have suffered a non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome; and (4) pa

25 vation myocardial infarction (84.4%) and non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes (71.5%) th

26 t IL-1 receptor antagonist, in patients with ST-segment-elevation acute myocardial infarction or hear

27 Adult (>18 years) comatose survivors without ST-segment elevation after resuscitation from out-of-hos

28 as seen more commonly in admissions with non-ST-segment elevation AMI-CS, nonwhite race, and higher b

29 s with acute myocardial infarction including ST-segment elevation and non-ST-segment elevation were r

30 Angina, initial shockable rhythm, ST-segment elevation, and absence of known coronary arte

31 patency, the quantitative intracoronary ECG ST-segment elevation, and angina pectoris during the sam

32 The increase of type-1 ST-segment elevation correlated with AES expansion (r=0.

33 r access complication, and one had transient ST-segment elevation from air-embolism, without sequelae

34 of coronary angiography in patients without ST-segment elevations is less clear.

35 arction (MI) (18.7% vs. 22.5%; p < 0.001) or ST-segment elevation MI (8.5% vs. 15.7%; p < 0.001).

36 n-hospital reperfusion rates and outcomes of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in renal transplant reci

37 Among patients with ST-segment elevation MI and multivessel coronary artery

38 ar risk of incident MI (0.8% annually), with ST-segment elevation MI constituting one-third of all ca

39 utic approach deserves to be investigated in ST-segment elevation MI patients.

40 Among 2,296 patients, non-ST-segment elevation MI prevalence was 9.8%.

41 20% of MI cases and presented more often as ST-segment elevation MI versus MI not related to a stent

42 ntration was measured in 1,398 patients with ST-segment elevation MI who enrolled in a prospective co

43 h all-cause mortality in patients with acute ST-segment elevation MI who underwent primary percutaneo

44 (mean age 67.1 years; 61.3% male; 78.8% non-ST-segment elevation MI).

45 All presented with MI; 25.7% had ST-segment elevation MI, 74.3% had non-ST-segment elevat

46 % had ST-segment elevation MI, 74.3% had non-ST-segment elevation MI, and 8.9% had ventricular tachyc

47 ower EF were more likely to have experienced ST-segment elevation MI, have higher troponin values, an

48 age of 45 years; 19% were women, and 54% had ST-segment elevation MI.

49 here were 294 (20%) women, and 846 (57%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

50 odels were created to explore all MI and non-ST-segment-elevation MI (NSTEMI) versus ST-segment-eleva

51 non-ST-segment-elevation MI (NSTEMI) versus ST-segment-elevation MI (STEMI) over time.

52 tion MI hospitalization was smaller than for ST-segment-elevation MI among both women and men (-1.9%

53 rst hospitalization for AMI overall, and for ST-segment-elevation MI and non-ST-segment-elevation MI

54 me course of edema reaction in patients with ST-segment-elevation MI by CMR and assessed its implicat

55 s -8.3% (95% CI, -8.0% to -8.6%).The AAPC in ST-segment-elevation MI changed among women in 2009 (200

56 Dynamic changes in post-ST-segment-elevation MI edema highlight the need for sta

57 The AAPC for ST-segment-elevation MI hospitalization overall was -8.3

58 The AAPC for non-ST-segment-elevation MI hospitalization was smaller than

59 A total of 16 patients with anterior ST-segment-elevation MI successfully treated by primary

60 all, and for ST-segment-elevation MI and non-ST-segment-elevation MI was identified by International

61 aphy can be challenging in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation MI.

62 ity to identify the IRA in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation MI.

63 lder than 18 years with unstable angina, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or S

64 vely enrolled 27 patients with anterior wall ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 4

65 elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), with

66 ina or urgent PCI for unstable angina or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction less than 30

67 raphy (ECG) showed signs of ongoing anterior ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, and emergent

68 raphy (ECG) showed signs of ongoing anterior ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, and emergent

69 elevation acute coronary syndrome (14%) and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (11%).

70 SCAD patients more frequently presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (57% vs. 36%;

71 Findings were similar for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coeffici

72 0; 95% CI: -0.98 to 1.58; p = 0.637) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coeffici

73 without PCI or in those with a diagnosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (group by PCI

74 ISR PCI were less likely to present with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) (18.7% v

75 cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and mult

76 complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) with mul

77 rapid triage of patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI).

78 vation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) pati

79 r the care and outcomes of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

80 ruction commonly affects patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and i

81 cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and m

82 rt failure and non-fatal AMI at 12-months in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and n

83 Challenges to improving ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care

84 To date there are few reports of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) cause

85 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compl

86 e carry an increased risk of mortality after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compl

87 may have potentially refrained patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from

88 an alternative to mechanical reperfusion for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in se

89 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is th

90 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may n

91 ical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or no

92 Singapore Myocardial Infarction Registry] of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patie

93 Circulating EPA in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) relat

94 tated after cardiac arrest in the absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remai

95 Myocardial damage due to acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remai

96 ovement in clinical outcome in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treat

97 In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), a ge

98 In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), perc

99 In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the

100 are largely unknown in SCAD presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

101 ping to interrogate the myocardium following ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

102 e epicardial and microvascular flow in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

103 Smoking is a well-documented risk for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

104 imary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

105 prove the clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

106 nts standard care for treating patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

107 antify the edema-based area-at-risk (AAR) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

108 moking is a well-established risk factor for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); howe

109 CI full bivalirudin was administered in 612 (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], n =

110 Of 91,895 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 87,915 pa

111 In patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and an ischem

112 bstruction affects one-half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and confers a

113 Patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and elevated

114 revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-se

115 lirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients o

116 ation myocardial infarction (group by PCI or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction interaction e

117 r CTA first in the diagnostic process in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is a safe gat

118 Timely restoration of perfusion in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is associated

119 her this is true in a real-world prehospital ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction network using

120 Of the 5583 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients in t

121 In this large Canadian ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction registry, a p

122 ected patients presenting with suspected non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to the emerge

123 orithm for rapid rule-out and rule-in of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction using high-se

124 ment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were consider

125 entation, with <=2 hours of symptoms or with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were excluded

126 mber 21, 2017, 440 patients, presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction within 6 h of

127 oing single-vessel FFR assessment (excluding ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) from April 1

128 dial infarction and 87,915 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 88,542 (96.4

129 Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic

130 segment elevation acute coronary syndrome or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with or with

131 percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

132 ry syndromes include unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

133 ars, 72 (76.6%) were men, and 65 (69.1%) had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

134 t-elevation myocardial infarction (45%), and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (33%).

135 med for stable angina (66%), followed by non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (45%), and ST

136 was more frequently used among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (84.4%) and n

137 ning the infarct-related artery (IRA) in non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) can be c

138 cardial infarction (n=5996, 853 deaths), non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n=5371, 901

139 ive survival was estimated for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n=5996, 853

140 In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and

141 1.03); P=0.07; multivessel disease following ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (RR, 0.84 [95

142 Systems to improve ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care

143 Mortality of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) decre

144 nary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has b

145 ival for overweight and obese patients after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has b

146 imately half of the patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have

147 The optimal treatment strategy for treating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in co

148 cardiovascular disease in general and acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in pa

149 of persistent T2 hyperintensity after acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is un

150 e ACS clinical presentation consisted of non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) type

151 l patients and for patients with and without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) under

152 e direct immediate intervention and therapy, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) victi

153 In ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), infa

154 ompared with clopidogrel among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), thou

155 vately insured individuals hospitalized with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

156 rse cardiac events (MACE) following an acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

157 rognostic utility in patients after an acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

158 ardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

159 iated with adverse outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

160 presentation and management of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

161 Participants were stratified by AMI subtype (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and n

162 o determine if timing of cell delivery after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction affects recov

163 1-year cumulative survival for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction aged >/=76 ye

164 wn to have prognostic value in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiac a

165 mproves myocardial dynamics in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and is an ind

166 In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivess

167 ete revascularization in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivess

168 complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivess

169 tructive nonculprit lesions in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivess

170 us coronary intervention in 93 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivess

171 nger age categories and in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and stable an

172 ) in the United States for patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and the compa

173 rfusion times and mortality in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are influence

174 ions in time to reperfusion in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction as well as in

175 riage of survivors of cardiac arrest without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction at the point

176 vely investigated 215 patients admitted with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction between April

177 ention among 95 925 patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction between Janua

178 patients who have undergone primary PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction but have resi

179 scoring model was developed and validated on ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction cohorts from

180 infarction and multivessel disease; and the ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction culprit vesse

181 Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction developing ad

182 Routine thrombus aspiration during PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction did not impro

183 During Primary PCI), 440 patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction from 11 UK ho

184 by 9254 operators at 1538 hospitals for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction from 2009 to

185 cardiovascular magnetic resonance following ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction have recently

186 ive sample of patients in China admitted for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in 2001, 2006

187 patients with LV dysfunction after extensive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in terms of g

188 ely 4% to 5%, a figure comparable to that of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the era of

189 igher rates of reperfusion for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the interv

190 re performed in 1119 patients discharged for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction included in a

191 lor maintenance therapy after revascularized ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction is associated

192 Contemporary ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction management in

193 ndings support efforts to implement regional ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction networks focu

194 , admitted with acute myocardial infarction (ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction or type I non

195 milar number had acute presentation (49% non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction or unstable a

196 d, single-blind, controlled trial randomized ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients 1:1

197 METHODS AND Consecutive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients from

198 r obstruction, which occurs in around 50% of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients post

199 mplete Revascularization), we randomized 627 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients to f

200 We randomized 122 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients to p

201 provides better prognostic stratification of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients trea

202 and led to a relevant decrease in TA use in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients unde

203 Between June 2017 and June 2018, 150 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients were

204 A total of 55 809 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients were

205 mized, Phase III STEM-AMI OUTCOME trial, 161 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients were

206 ND In this prospective study, 88 consecutive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients were

207 tions and the documented survival benefit in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients who

208 of a prospective trial which randomized 696 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with

209 A total of 322 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with

210 reserve-guided complete revascularization in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with

211 selective use of CMR for risk prediction in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with

212 METHODS AND Hospitals (n=167 with 23 498 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients) wer

213 Among 2290 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients, 36.

214 its robust risk stratification of discharged ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients, but

215 eluting stent (SES) at 12-month follow-up in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

216 ognostic value over clinical risk factors in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

217 elop and validate a CMR-based risk score for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients.

218 pectively collected data on 5665 consecutive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction PCI patients

219 aseline differences, clinical outcomes after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction PCI were simi

220 oup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to

221 A total of 110 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction received a lo

222 Using a comprehensive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction registry, we

223 available process measure for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction requiring int

224 2017, treatment times of 2063 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction requiring int

225 n 1 h after pPCI in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction scheduled for

226 r is recommended in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction scheduled to

227 in the Netherlands, enrolling patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction scheduled to

228 e analysis of bivalirudin versus UFH for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction to date, biva

229 MVO in a cohort of consecutive patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with

230 cardiac mortality in patients with high-risk ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with

231 econdary prevention therapy in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pe

232 7, we included all consecutive patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pe

233 d with reduced infarct size in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pe

234 ects of NAC on infarct size in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pe

235 tor antagonists are delayed in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

236 Adult patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

237 In a cohort of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

238 platelet aggregation (IPA) in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

239 n a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

240 ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

241 In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing pr

242 g with an acute coronary syndrome, including ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were enrolled

243 Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded

244 One hundred patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were randomiz

245 A total of 122 P2Y(12)-naive patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were randomly

246 gh-risk patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who did not u

247 cept for those (n=78, 23.6%) presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction who underwent

248 ospective cohort of unselected patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with paired a

249 levation myocardial infarction or type I non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction), and own a s

250 reatment, 533 sustained ACS (excluding acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction).

251 Of 112 randomized patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, 75 (37 in NA

252 ccurs in a large proportion of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, adversely af

253 reperfusion strategy for patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, aiming at re

254 2015 included 120 cases; 75% presented with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and 80% had

255 O-PCI) in patients with multivessel disease, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and cardioge

256 d with acute congestive heart failure or non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and had mult

257 ikely to include high-risk features, such as ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic

258 For patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, national qua

259 In patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, percutaneous

260 r ejection fraction <30% within 4 days after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, primary vent

261 henotype were observed, particularly for non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, reflecting a

262 utaneous coronary intervention for extensive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the effects

263 For patients presenting with an acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the most eff

264 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, there may be

265 In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, ticagrelor m

266 going percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, we did not f

267 vents and new congestive heart failure after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

268 years, 62% were men, and 63% presented with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

269 importance in study participants with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

270 ies into improved clinical outcome following ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

271 lysis cases, 29.4% were women, and 21.0% had ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

272 hy-guided revascularization in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

273 s coronary intervention improves outcomes in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

274 predictor of left ventricular remodeling in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

275 ardiography for a selective use of CMR after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

276 gnosis, particularly for older patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

277 ombus aspiration during PCI in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

278 on of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

279 assessment of myocardial injury early after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

280 thrombectomy and PCI alone in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

281 approach to emergency care for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

282 opulmonary resuscitation in patients without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

283 ry intervention for patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

284 n is essential for in-hospital management of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

285 ic ability of admission LUS in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

286 raphic recanalization rates in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

287 imary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

288 , infarct size, and clinical outcomes, after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

289 a cohort of stable reperfused patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

290 versus placebo in 120 patients with anterior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarctions resulting in

291 ing analyses of patients with large anterior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarctions, bone marrow

292 in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) myocardial infarction (MI).

293 patients resuscitated from VF/pVT OHCA with ST-segment elevation on their postresuscitation ECG, the

294 tients resuscitated from VF/pVT OHCA without ST-segment elevation on their postresuscitation ECG, the

295 rgency coronary angiography in patients with ST-segment elevations on ECG after OHCA, while the role

296 Women had lower rates of ST-segment elevation presentation (73.0% versus 78.7%),

297 nary syndrome (ACS) patients with or without ST-segment elevation remains unclear.

298 ith acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial

299 In ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation, the primary endpoint did not diffe

300 ction including ST-segment elevation and non-ST-segment elevation were recruited between February 201