ライフサイエンスコーパス: coronary intervention

1 artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention).

2 ortened DAPT duration following percutaneous coronary intervention.

3 infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

4 l infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

5 in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

6 atelet therapy (DAPT) following percutaneous coronary intervention.

7 in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

8 antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention.

9 r-hospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

10 group of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.

11 syndrome patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

12 l infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

13 appeared to be beneficial after percutaneous coronary intervention.

14 RRR were measured post-primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

15 s with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

16 mpared to immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

17 syndromes, and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

18 patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

19 l of 15 968 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

20 or adoption of the technique in percutaneous coronary intervention.

21 uring the first month following percutaneous coronary intervention.

22 ) patients underwent stent-only percutaneous coronary intervention.

23 rdial Infarction) flow <3 after percutaneous coronary intervention.

24 toward these individuals during percutaneous coronary intervention.

25 MI) patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

26 coronary artery bypass grafting-percutaneous coronary intervention.

27 scular events, especially after percutaneous coronary intervention.

28 g events and bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention.

29 n-only or immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

30 ring dialysis within 30 days of percutaneous coronary intervention.

31 r BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

32 ong patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

33 on patients who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

34 RA versus femoral access in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention.

35 12 inhibitors in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention.

36 participants underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

37 ine cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention.

38 trategy from medical therapy to percutaneous coronary intervention.

39 , 209 women) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

40 on of dual antiplatelet therapy needed after coronary intervention.

41 predominantly SDD for elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

42 5% among patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention.

43 e (SDD) following uncomplicated percutaneous coronary intervention.

44 on of intravascular imaging for percutaneous coronary intervention.

45 syndrome patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention.

46 hen treating patients following percutaneous coronary intervention.

47 diac catheterization, including percutaneous coronary interventions.

48 romes in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary interventions.

49 m data may be useful in guiding percutaneous coronary interventions.

50 than control immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention (14.1+/-4.1% versus 12.0+/-3.3%; P

51 giography (49.2% versus 54.1%), percutaneous coronary intervention (59.2% versus 64.0%), and mechanic

52 irmed among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (72% of population) and regardless

53 Y12 inhibitor in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-anal

54 l infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, admission LUS added to Killip cla

55 safety end point of major peri-percutaneous coronary intervention adverse events was similar in both

56 nd underwent CA with or without percutaneous coronary intervention after TAVI.

57 my catheter devices used during percutaneous coronary intervention among 95 925 patients presenting w

58 ity and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions among current smokers and nonsmok

59 s the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery

60 [27.3%] underwent rescue/urgent percutaneous coronary intervention and 1312 [72.7%] had scheduled ang

61 ome measure in trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft s

62 ated this evolving physiological guidance of coronary intervention and its use is supported by large

63 vation MI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention and the interplay between IL-1beta

64 dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention and the withholding of aspirin amo

65 348 patients underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention and were included in the analysis.

66 ke a treatment decision between percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass grafti

67 o receive coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, and mechanical circulatory suppor

68 ed, 1440 (79.4%) performed >=10 percutaneous coronary interventions annually.

69 yocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are at increased risk of both isch

70 t-TAVI coronary access (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention are expected to increase.

71 s in timely delivery of primary percutaneous coronary intervention are expected, a modern fibrinolyti

72 yocardial infarction (MI) after percutaneous coronary intervention are independent risk factors for m

73 l infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited.

74 rmed STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention at Barts Heart Centre between Marc

75 erences in complexity of patients undergoing coronary intervention at sites with and without cardioth

76 high-risk patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, based on one of the following fac

77 clopidogrel effectiveness after percutaneous coronary intervention, but the clinical impact of implem

78 stenosis in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but their use necessitates prolon

79 nd was performed before primary percutaneous coronary intervention by an operator blinded to Killip c

80 rease in mortality when primary percutaneous coronary intervention cannot be delivered in a timely fa

81 120 minutes from arrival at the percutaneous coronary intervention-capable facility.

82 Diagnostic Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CathPCI) registry of the National

83 In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, CEC procedures identified 3 times

84 syndromes and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention changed the treatment paradigm.

85 ial vessel patency with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary microvascular injury occ

86 Percutaneous coronary intervention did not offer a survival advantage

87 proportion of patients, primary percutaneous coronary intervention does not achieve effective myocard

88 Therapy in Subjects Who Require Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) double-blind randomized trial com

89 icardial effusion or tamponade, percutaneous coronary intervention due to iatrogenic coronary dissect

90 orming coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention due to the reduced risk for vascul

91 ibrillation patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention enrolled in PIONEER AF-PCI (An Ope

92 CE after revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention, even with contemporary DES.

93 In 100 vessels with a post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR <=0.85, mean post procedural F

94 e-center registry in which post-percutaneous coronary intervention FFR was assessed in 1000 consecuti

95 V ejection fraction <=45% after percutaneous coronary intervention for extensive ST-segment-elevation

96 anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left anterior descending d

97 to perform expeditious primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients presenting with ST-se

98 marker concentrations regarding percutaneous coronary intervention for prognostic purpose.

99 mited only to studies that used percutaneous coronary intervention for revascularization, deferred re

100 Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardia

101 igh-risk patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardia

102 ng 10 987 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for stable ischemic heart disease,

103 r-hospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention from 12 regions around the United

104 iety including all the elective percutaneous coronary intervention from 2007 to 2014 in the United Ki

105 l infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention from 2011 to 2018 were identified

106 d 55% of men in the multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention group.

107 (group 1) and before and after percutaneous coronary intervention (group 2).

108 y syndrome and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention had less bleeding with apixaban th

109 Bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention has important prognostic implicati

110 tion, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention has resulted in functionally favor

111 o coronary angiography to guide percutaneous coronary interventions has accumulated over the past 25

112 % to 10% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have AF, which complicates antithr

113 n chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention have been developed.

114 risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have been widely excluded from ran

115 ent ethyl significantly reduced percutaneous coronary intervention (hazard ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.59-

116 (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.90]), percutaneous coronary intervention (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.95]), an

117 f the angiography system during percutaneous coronary intervention, illustrating the course of the oc

118 onculprit lesions after primary percutaneous coronary intervention improves outcomes in ST-segment-el

119 teries before nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention in 93 patients with ST-segment-ele

120 ong 7888 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in Alberta Canada, CA-AKI occurred

121 Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an all-comer manner.

122 re was no survival benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention in any subset defined by either an

123 ly versus immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with acute

124 r an acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with atrial fibrillati

125 hemic and bleeding events after percutaneous coronary intervention in the GLOBAL LEADERS study.

126 The role of percutaneous coronary interventions in addition to medical therapy fo

127 rdiac catheterization (139 with percutaneous coronary intervention) in the setting of OAC.

128 r an acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from AUGUSTUS.

129 nd with concomitant procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention, intra-aortic balloon pump, and pe

130 the door-to-balloon time-outcome relation in coronary intervention is limited by the potential of res

131 alleles in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is not recommended by clinical gui

132 Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is nowadays the preferred reperfus

133 sation and adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown.

134 ased Clopidogrel Response After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) is a large, pragmatic, randomized

135 Atrial Fibrillation Who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), it is unclear if the observed re

136 on of this strategic method for percutaneous coronary intervention may aid in the greater adoption of

137 ting intravascular imaging with percutaneous coronary intervention may overcome the barriers to utili

138 Use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulatory support an

139 y, use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulatory support, h

140 ing cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (n=632) with or without pelvic MXP

141 ome Subjects Who Are to Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00097591).

142 In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of de novo saphenous vein graft le

143 moral access, RA is used in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of less complex lesions and is ass

144 revascularization with routine percutaneous coronary intervention of nonculprit lesions after primar

145 explain the benefit of routine percutaneous coronary intervention of obstructive nonculprit lesions

146 bolic protection devices during percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein grafts, but the

147 cularization strategies: either percutaneous coronary intervention of the culprit-lesion-only or imme

148 ease who underwent a successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the IRA to test differences in

149 cent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention on a P2Y(12) inhibitor were random

150 ntrol (50 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention only).

151 angiography managed with either percutaneous coronary intervention or medical therapy.

152 eated with sonothrombolysis and percutaneous coronary intervention) or control (50 patients treated w

153 oronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, or equipoise coronary artery bypa

154 heart valve repair/replacement; percutaneous coronary intervention; or heart/heart-lung transplant).

155 tes without public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes (Delaware, Connecticut, M

156 states with public reporting of percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes (New York and Massachuset

157 l infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI).

158 At the time of percutaneous coronary intervention, participants were randomly assign

159 Acute Coronary Syndrome and/or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), patients with atrial fibrillatio

160 lower MACCE rates compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) + OMT (adjusted HR: 0.69; 95

161 f urgent coronary angiogram and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after sudden cardiac arrest,

162 ccessful revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and antianginal therapy.

163 long-term utilization following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and association with clinica

164 ct on payments and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass g

165 dial infarction (PMI) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary bypass grafting

166 therapy and transradial primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are also associated with red

167 injury and inflammation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are associated with increase

168 diovascular events (MACE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are believed to occur within

169 atients who undergo multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are sparse.

170 nary syndrome or have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are unclear.

171 her patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) benefit from genotype-guided

172 outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ISR in the United States

173 grafting (CABG) was superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for major acute cardiovascul

174 ly assigned (1:1) to either the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group or coronary artery byp

175 Although results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been steadily improving

176 sex-related outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported conflicting re

177 nged bivalirudin infusion after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndrome (

178 CATH was followed by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cases of significant coro

179 ncreasingly revascularized with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in contemporary practice.

180 study was to examine the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in older adults with STEMI a

181 ving strategy in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involves withdrawal of acety

182 antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) irrespective of indication f

183 Undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a risk factor for AKI dev

184 Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used in reva

185 atrial fibrillation (AF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear.

186 e in patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.

187 s after chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.

188 Complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may have significant impact

189 prognostic implications of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) neutrophil-to-lymphocyte rat

190 onship has not been studied for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of chronic total occlusion (

191 ught to examine the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-flow-limiting vulnera

192 TEMI) trial, angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of nonculprit lesions with t

193 mpared with aspirin alone after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or acute coronary syndrome b

194 fit from revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass gr

195 vel noninvasive FFR(CT)-derived percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) planning tool (FFR(CT-P)) in

196 tudy was to evaluate changes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice in England by analy

197 cohort of R-PCI to traditional percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures performed at a te

198 d that staged nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced major cardiovascular

199 levation myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces mortality when compa

200 syndrome (ACS) treated without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unexplored.

201 fibrillation (AF) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) require multiple antithrombo

202 ospitals in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with MCS (Impella or

203 inferiority trial that compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using first-generation pacli

204 ry artery disease randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypas

205 l, the effect of treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypas

206 is after revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypas

207 sk (RIR) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with baseline low-density li

208 Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluti

209 bservational evidence comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass

210 placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within the ORBITA trial (Obj

211 ty of patients that may undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without on-site cardiothorac

212 cute revascularization included percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), n = 33 (62%), or bypass gra

213 before, and following, emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or to a control group that

214 ease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with pre

215 ve patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), periprocedural thrombotic a

216 ort-term adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the association between pro

217 oing cardiac catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), was terminated early for lo

218 ion in the TAVR group underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), while those in the SAVR gro

219 In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), who did not receive P2Y(12)

220 ation is accomplished either by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with low risk of immediate

221 e (VCD) are thought to mitigate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related bleeding.

222 schemia and guide decisions for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

223 s shown long-term benefits over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

224 on (NSTEMI) patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

225 ting AKI in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

226 and long-term outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

227 of FFR measured directly after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

228 yocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

229 eding and ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

230 g chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

231 th CA among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

232 decision-making guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

233 ronary angiography and possible percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

234 diographic monitoring following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is not well studied.

235 ac procedures (Catheterization, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - PCI - and Coronary Artery Bypass

236 ry revascularization procedure (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass gr

237 e, coronary angiography without percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], PCI, and coronary artery by

238 After percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs), patients remain at high r

239 c coronary angiographies and 83 percutaneous coronary interventions) performed in 157 patients by 4 d

240 inhibition in the peri-primary percutaneous coronary intervention period.

241 performances in the derivation percutaneous coronary intervention populations.

242 gy as an alternative to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myo

243 s with STEMI treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), with identification of "at

244 on scheduled to undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI).

245 ational exposure during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

246 ve smokers at the time of their percutaneous coronary intervention procedure.

247 .1% of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures, respectively.

248 Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI) has been shown to benefit

249 l infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, randomly allocated to everolimus-

250 cent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention receiving a P2Y(12) inhibitor, api

251 New York's cardiac surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention registries in 2010 to 2016 were us

252 In a large multicenter CTO percutaneous coronary interventions registry, prior CABG patients had

253 Primary percutaneous coronary intervention resulted indicated in 80.8% of pat

254 -hospital transfers for primary percutaneous coronary intervention that reflects inter-facility commu

255 with coronary stenosis who are eligible for coronary intervention, the uptake of a physiology-guided

256 iplatelet prescribing following percutaneous coronary intervention.The primary outcome was the rate o

257 l infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant differen

258 leeding events at 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy demonstrat

259 gned 15,991 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to 1-month dual antiplatelet thera

260 tiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention to conventional 12-month DAPT foll

261 ocated for saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention to decrease the incidence of dista

262 Most patients preferred percutaneous coronary intervention to either medical therapy alone or

263 airs centers within 72 hours of percutaneous coronary intervention to intensive lipid-lowering therap

264 Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial, which randomized patients

265 fter unprotected left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention (uLMS-PCI) is poorly defined.

266 , and had higher AMI volume and percutaneous coronary intervention use during the AMI hospitalization

267 e of intravascular imaging with percutaneous coronary intervention, utilization remains low.

268 The clinical success of percutaneous coronary intervention was 97.9%.

269 Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased r

270 ultivessel disease, multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased r

271 ronary alteplase during primary percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with increased MVO.

272 perfusion defect size after CTO percutaneous coronary intervention was comparable between different a

273 all-comers population requiring percutaneous coronary intervention was enrolled across 3 European sit

274 vasive management on day 30 but percutaneous coronary intervention was not performed.

275 in 163 patients (60.4%), and a percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 97 patients (35.9

276 in the coronary arteries where percutaneous coronary intervention was performed.

277 ac catheterisation and possible percutaneous coronary intervention was safe and can aid in identifyin

278 Prior percutaneous coronary intervention was the strongest clinical predict

279 emic coronary pressure measurements to guide coronary interventions was introduced in an attempt to s

280 the downstream group undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were further randomized to receive

281 Percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent is the m

282 dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with a polymer-free drug-coated st

283 ere assessed and compared after percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stents (BMS) and f

284 frequency of bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention with both NSTEMI (11.0% versus 7.8

285 dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with DCS, identical to LF.

286 tudy participants who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantati

287 grafting (CABG) is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (PCI-DES)

288 tiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains u

289 py reduces major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents, whereas

290 ded-term (>12-month) DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.

291 stigate the available data on survival after coronary intervention with paclitaxel-coated balloons fr

292 rapy in HBR patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Resolute Onyx drug-eluting st

293 on of all-cause mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention with site-reported bleeding and MI

294 Mechanical reperfusion with percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and more intense pla

295 The SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) sc

296 In the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) tr

297 1-month DAPT duration following percutaneous coronary intervention with zotarolimus-eluting stents in

298 n or heparin monotherapy during percutaneous coronary intervention, with mandatory potent P2Y12 inhib

299 ociated with performing primary percutaneous coronary intervention within the national goal of <=120

300 ogenic shock undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention without classic indications for mi