ライフサイエンスコーパス: high-risk patient

1 p and cause the drug to be less effective in high risk patients.

2 on postoperative day 1 (POD 1) for moderate/high risk patients.

3 tablish the best treatment options for these high-risk patients.

4 romising tool for breast cancer screening in high-risk patients.

5 urgical mitral valve replacement in selected high-risk patients.

6 ow-risk, 5.0% for medium-risk, and 18.1% for high-risk patients.

7 search and improve preventive strategies for high-risk patients.

8 role of preemptive TIPS in a large number of high-risk patients.

9 could target infection prevention bundles to high-risk patients.

10 ntation, with hs-cTnI >=120 ng/l identifying high-risk patients.

11 se of prophylactic antimicrobial regimens in high-risk patients.

12 tical to identify, counsel, and manage these high-risk patients.

13 d CNS control without excessive toxicity for high-risk patients.

14 d 20 ARS points the best threshold to define high-risk patients.

15 ents and within 6 hours for CSRS medium- and high-risk patients.

16 rgets for cancer prevention and treatment in high-risk patients.

17 sable, part of therapy for a large subset of high-risk patients.

18 y and severity of pancreatitis after ERCP in high-risk patients.

19 ith pancreatitis incidence remaining high in high-risk patients.

20 y cytometry by time of flight) was higher in high-risk patients.

21 eoxycholic acid (UDCA) to prevent rCDI in 16 high-risk patients.

22 stigations and lacks CMR imaging to identify high-risk patients.

23 or duration of AKI after cardiac surgery in high-risk patients.

24 ng-term freedom from AF recurrences in these high-risk patients.

25 and to prioritize alternative approaches in high-risk patients.

26 subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients.

27 mission affects the overall outcome of these high-risk patients.

28 y practices that serve socially or medically high-risk patients.

29 a cardioverter-defibrillator in appropriate high-risk patients.

30 ng and more aggressive preventive efforts on high-risk patients.

31 , if treatment with ezetimibe is targeted to high-risk patients.

32 maging in the characterization of nodules in high-risk patients.

33 Hg, that lower BP targets are beneficial for high-risk patients.

34 l infarction may help increase statin use in high-risk patients.

35 nity to improve the quality of care in these high-risk patients.

36 %; and partial response, 36%) and 100% among high-risk patients.

37 eived experimental approaches to treat these high-risk patients.

38 metastatic infectious foci in 73.7% of these high-risk patients.

39 men with added gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) in high-risk patients.

40 ted costs, with the greatest cost offsets in high-risk patients.

41 se the risk of major adverse events in these high-risk patients.

42 d as an alternative to surgical treatment in high-risk patients.

43 d to diagnose invasive aspergillosis (IA) in high-risk patients.

44 n cardiovascular outcomes in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

45 there is a great need to accurately identify high-risk patients.

46 ss lenalidomide maintenance therapy in these high-risk patients.

47 geons in delivering goal-concordant care for high-risk patients.

48 on Index were more frequently observed among high-risk patients.

49 tive HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients.

50 vely, and EFS was 100% and 82.1% in low- and high-risk patients.

51 Findings may help in the identification of high-risk patients.

52 topathologic diagnosis to guide treatment of high-risk patients.

53 trong prognostic value for identification of high-risk patients.

54 gained preliminary data using nelarabine in high-risk patients.

55 events is needed to enable identification of high-risk patients.

56 diagnosed and untreated in a large number of high-risk patients.

57 shorter follow-up times to retina clinic for high-risk patients.

58 y facilitate earlier consideration of TPK in high-risk patients.

59 prolonged course of viral replication in CMV high-risk patients.

60 isk patients and to improve the prognosis in high-risk patients.

61 ms to reduce cardiovascular complications in high-risk patients.

62 stratification for the formation of BTAs in high-risk patients.

63 educe major adverse cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.

64 and escalate the dose to the bone marrow for high-risk patients.

65 kelihood of mortality and ICU readmission in high-risk patients.

66 Among the high-risk patients, 6/9 patients with residual tumour re

67 sulted in significantly higher MACE rates in high-risk patients (9.0% versus 2.2%; P=0.001).

68 ntestinal healing and disease progression in high-risk patients, a treat-to-target strategy (based on

69 precisely calibrate follow-up intensity for high-risk patients after antidepressant initiation.

70 WILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial, w

71 illator (ICD) implantation in early selected high-risk patients after primary percutaneous coronary i

72 ed the previously reported outcome data from high-risk patients aged 55 years or older with a history

73 le is not necessarily the optimal target for high-risk patients, although it is not possible to rule

74 g and then guide individualized FC dosing in high-risk patients and (2) determining the dose, safety,

75 .5 mL) were detected in 6.8% (10/147) of the high-risk patients and 6.2% (2/33) with advanced disease

76 ns should be thoughtfully employed to target high-risk patients and avoid this potentially fatal comp

77 ix as transplanting low-, intermediate-, and high-risk patients and by short-term performance as SMR

78 dition, we also sequence samples from 39 GBC high-risk patients and detect evidence of early cancer-r

79 udy was to determine whether ML can identify high-risk patients and direct mandatory twice-weekly cli

80 can serve as a powerful tool for identifying high-risk patients and for assessing the potential of ne

81 AVI) has evolved to a treatment of choice in high-risk patients and is therefore ideal for patients w

82 e and a lack of both adequate treatments for high-risk patients and noninvasive biomarkers of disease

83 remains suboptimal for intermediate-risk and high-risk patients and novel therapies are needed.

84 m with rFVIII, which was 6.3 for genetically high-risk patients and only 2.3 for low-risk patients.

85 have been recognized, but tools to identify high-risk patients and preventive interventions are miss

86 t when structuring mitigation strategies for high-risk patients and should be further tested in a pro

87 dipose tissue distribution may help identify high-risk patients and tailor CVD prevention strategies.

88 eview of the literature on identification of high-risk patients and the treatment of this life-threat

89 40.3 months (95% CI, 33.5 to 47 months) for high-risk patients, and 76.5 months (95% CI, 66.9 to 86.

90 and secondary CVD preventive care than other high-risk patients, and an unmet need exists for improve

91 ological, and imaging biomarkers to identify high-risk patients, and clinical trials evaluating novel

92 to provide point of care diagnosis, identify high-risk patients, and increase our understanding of th

93 er exposure to the aerodigestive tract among high-risk patients, and the incidence rate decreased to

94 k patients and within 6 hours in medium- and high-risk patients, and the residual risk after these cu

95 classification enables earlier treatment for high-risk patients as well as reduction of unnecessary t

96 lopment of a prognostic test for identifying high-risk patients at a time early enough to trigger int

97 orizes observations from imaging analyses of high-risk patients based on the level of suspicion for h

98 The proportions of high-risk patients because of diminutive polyps with adv

99 n amylase analysis identifies which moderate/high risk patients benefit from early drain removal.

100 o be proportional to baseline risk-such that high-risk patients benefit most.

101 The low- and high-risk patients classified by DGM-CM6 (RI-DR) had sig

102 A high-risk patient cohort (CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc: 4.7 +/- 1.5)

103 RR cHL, and resulted in a promising PFS in a high-risk patient cohort, supporting the testing of this

104 f NKG2C NK cells in the blood and BAL of CMV high-risk patients, coincident with both the cessation o

105 n or combination therapy with biologicals in high-risk patients, combined with a tight and frequent c

106 ) for mortality was 6.1 (95% CI 2.4-15.2) in high-risk patients compared to low-risk patients (p < 0.

107 tocols for the screening of breast cancer in high-risk patients compared to the full protocol.

108 For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is sugges

109 High-risk patients could be identified before weaning to

110 An increasing proportion of high-risk patients could be missed by current programs s

111 In addition, for high-risk patients (ctDNA positive before or during trea

112 benefit of scheduled intermittent dosing in high-risk patient-derived tumors in vivo.

113 One APOL1 high-risk patient developed collapsing glomerulopathy in

114 The risk among low- and high-risk patients did not differ much when they were tr

115 ys for selected medium-risk patients and all high-risk patients discharged from the hospital should a

116 In high-risk patients, discussions regarding extended stays

117 ver, indicates that low-dose CT screening of high-risk patients enables detection of lung cancer at a

118 ion for increasing hemodialysis adherence in high-risk patients, especially at centers caring for vul

119 warfarin treatment after PVI is not safe in high-risk patients, especially those who have previously

120 eas 0.9% of medium-risk patients and 6.3% of high-risk patients experienced them ( P<0.0001).

121 alized in detection of colorectal lesions in high-risk patients for colorectal cancer.

122 factors allow more precise identification of high-risk patients for early intensive control of multip

123 y warning system to help clinicians identify high-risk patients for further screening.

124 hese predictors can help identify and target high-risk patients for interventions to reduce readmissi

125 acy, thus allowing earlier identification of high-risk patients for potentially life-saving intervent

126 accurate prognostic predictors for selecting high-risk patients for randomized controlled trials.

127 of an automated predictive model to identify high-risk patients for whom interventions by rapid-respo

128 y evaluates (1) whether exclusion of certain high-risk patients from public reporting of PCI outcomes

129 he 14-predictor BN accurately predicted this high-risk patient group: area under the receiver operati

130 outcomes and was particularly important for high-risk patient groups and less robust regimens.

131 outcomes and was particularly important for high-risk patient groups and less-robust regimens.

132 ectiveness, and reduced risk of mortality in high-risk patient groups.

133 eloping new therapies as well as identifying high-risk patient groups.

134 High-risk patients (>=3 biomarkers "positive"; n = 1,437

135 rred in those with low genetic risk, whereas high-risk patients had a cumulative incidence of 31%.

136 High-risk patients had bolus epinephrine preordered and

137 ts, and practices that served more medically high-risk patients had lower quality and higher costs.

138 hysician practices that served more socially high-risk patients had lower quality and lower costs, an

139 Although we found evidence that high-risk patients had more to gain from treatment, we w

140 er stratification on the 0.55-CCF threshold, high-risk patients had statistically significantly poore

141 High-risk patients have an increased screening failure r

142 immunosuppressed patients who are listed as high-risk patients have not been more susceptible to sev

143 High-risk patients (high-risk anatomy-anomalous left CA

144 For high-risk patients, hs-cTnI >=120 ng/l resulted in posit

145 rgical complications, and the percentage of "high-risk" patients (i.e., patients for whom there was a

146 In high-risk patients identified with the PYMS, 22% of them

147 ge pharmacoprophylaxis can be considered for high-risk patients (ie, VTE risk >0.4%).

148 into practice could standardize testing for high-risk patients in adult EDs during influenza seasons

149 There is a major unmet need to identify high-risk patients in myocarditis.

150 le MI(3) thresholds identifying low-risk and high-risk patients in the training set were 1.6 and 49.7

151 nt (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-

152 denocarcinoma is a major clinical problem in high-risk patients including FAP population.

153 .7% of arrhythmic outcomes among medium- and high-risk patients, including all ventricular arrhythmia

154 or violent ideation and behavior in clinical high-risk patients is essential, as these have predictiv

155 (DFS), the appropriate strategy for treating high-risk patients is unclear.

156 urther evaluation of this approach for these high-risk patients is warranted.

157 72.7) in the observation group; and in ultra-high-risk patients it was 62.9% (46.0-75.8) compared wit

158 (74.2-86.7) in the observation group, and in high-risk patients, it was 74.9% (65.8-81.9) in the lena

159 Select high-risk patients may benefit from consideration of del

160 High-risk patients may especially benefit from regular m

161 ensure bioequivalence between generics, and high-risk patients may have specific bioequivalence conc

162 Nine hundred three high-risk patients (median Society of Thoracic Surgeons

163 In high-risk patients, median CSS for CTC-positive versus C

164 Among these high-risk patients, molecular adsorbent recirculating sy

165 High-risk patients (n = 4,393; 25%), defined by >/=3 ris

166 associated with an improved outcome in these high-risk patients needs further study.

167 In multivariable analyses, NCI high-risk patients not receiving all prescribed ASNase d

168 ly warning scores were developed to identify high-risk patients on the hospital wards.

169 tional glaucoma risk factor (i.e., they were high-risk patients), only a relatively small proportion

170 How these recommendations are implemented in high-risk patients or according to setting of drug initi

171 ngenital heart defects (CHD) have focused on high-risk patients or used specialized, resource-intensi

172 Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score to identify high-risk patients outside the intensive care unit (ICU)

173 ardiovascular outcomes in clinical trials of high-risk patients over <3 years median treatment durati

174 Primary leukemia cells from high-risk patients overexpressed Notch3, Notch4, and Jag

175 of joint-replacement procedures performed in high-risk patients (P=0.81).

176 e may be useful to allocate resources toward high-risk patients, particularly in resource-poor settin

177 s utilized to reflect characteristics of the high-risk patient population with important unmet therap

178 eoadjuvant therapy, because they represent a high-risk patient population with poor outcomes when tre

179 d for robust LTBI screening programs in this high-risk patient population, even in low TB prevalence

180 d for robust LTBI screening programs in this high-risk patient population, even in low-TB-prevalence

181 tients, relapses do occur, especially in the high-risk patient population.

182 low-up and dermatologic surveillance in this high-risk patient population.

183 To identify high-risk patients, positive predictive values and speci

184 retrospective review of 157 breast MRI of 82 high-risk patients practiced in our hospital between Jan

185 Among 91155 high-risk patients (prestroke CHA2DS2-VASc score >/=2),

186 [HR] 1.81, P = .006) when comparing genetic high-risk patients (quartile 4) with genetic low-risk pa

187 luate DFS and overall survival (OS) in ccRCC high-risk patients randomized to sunitinib or sorafenib

188 ed three cycles without CNS prophylaxis, and high-risk patients received six cycles with intrathecal

189 ription was observed, with less than half of high-risk patients receiving an OAC prescription.

190 In very high-risk patients receiving combination haploidentical

191 Among high-risk patients receiving drug-eluting stents, the an

192 arin 100 IE/mL on CRBSI occurrence.Forty-one high-risk patients receiving HPS followed in a tertiary

193 iction tools have been developed to identify high-risk patients requiring follow-up.

194 ol/l and >211.3 pmol/l detected low-risk and high-risk patients, respectively.

195 ndirect consequences of the pandemic on this high-risk patient segment.

196 High-risk patients should be referred to high-volume cen

197 ications were unusual, the data suggest that high-risk patients should undergo treatment under local

198 t less than 1 week after discharge, and, for high-risk patients, structured nurse homevisits and hear

199 ventions aimed at preventing DGF within this high-risk patient subgroup.

200 ratification, CAC has been shown to identify high-risk patient subgroups.

201 -155 in several grades of ASIL obtained from high-risk patients, submitted to anal cancer screening f

202 CN positively correlated with survival in a high-risk patient subset.

203 n heralds a poor prognosis, with only 11% of high-risk patients surviving past 5 years.

204 y of Cardiology was inferior for identifying high-risk patients susceptible to arrhythmic sudden deat

205 Palliative care in high-risk patients targeted by an Early Warning System.

206 Among unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar ra

207 In high-risk patients, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve

208 e procedure for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients that is associated with significantly

209 and standard-risk cytogenetics subgroups: in high-risk patients, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.543 (95%

210 etrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients, the optimal dose is unknown, and pan

211 t to the prediction of 30-day readmission in high-risk patients; the Mumtaz readmission risk score hi

212 For the subgroup of high-risk patients, there was lower mortality observed w

213 of categorization, we found 43% to occur in high-risk patients; this might be reduced with more vigi

214 Of the PCCRCs identified, 43% were in high-risk patients (those with inflammatory bowel diseas

215 udies have documented a benefit in referring high-risk patients to high-quality hospitals on a nation

216 care approaches to patient care and identify high-risk patients to improve long-term weight loss main

217 This suggests triaging high-risk patients to local high-quality hospitals withi

218 en for oral cancer risk, and then they refer high-risk patients to specialists for biopsy-based diagn

219 edicare payments are significantly lower for high-risk patients treated at local high-quality hospita

220 Approximately 45% of high-risk patients treated at low-quality hospitals coul

221 ized placebo-controlled trial of EPA-only in high-risk patients treated with a statin.

222 trend towards a lower graft survival in CMV high-risk patients treated with belatacept and whether i

223 acute kidney injury (acute kidney injury) in high-risk patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass and

224 cellence should be pursued when possible for high-risk patients undergoing pancreas cancer screening.

225 relor alone versus ticagrelor plus ASA among high-risk patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting sten

226 day and 1-year outcomes in a large cohort of high-risk patients undergoing VIV TAVR.

227 One quarter of high-risk patients underwent surgery at a low-quality ho

228 High-risk patients using the REACH score were those with

229 of hospital discharge, be prioritized among high-risk patients, using the identified screening tools

230 groups of low-risk (volume </= cutoff) from high-risk patients (volume > cutoff), with similar 2-y p

231 The median OS for high-risk patients was 78.2 months (95% CI, 62.2 to 94.2

232 Intermediate- and high-risk patients were also randomly assigned after ind

233 P groups defining low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk patients were associated with progression-free

234 "High-risk" patients were best defined as those with a lo

235 rategies such as preprocedural intubation in high risk patients when PPCI is the preferred strategy m

236 Cost savings was more prominent amongst high-risk patients where the difference of total episode

237 HVPG is over 16 mm Hg improves detection of high-risk patients while markedly reducing the number of

238 h a dose of GO (9 mg/m(2) on day 1) added to high-risk patients (white blood cell count, >10 x 10(9)/

239 ical circulatory support, may be required in high-risk patients who are reasonable candidates for the

240 .76) and could similarly identify a group of high-risk patients who benefited most from an HF disease

241 ication using the TRS 2 degrees P identifies high-risk patients who derive greatest benefit from the

242 s in US and Canadian cooperative groups with high-risk patients who had ccRCC histology and pT3, pT4,

243 This method reduced the "gray zone" (i.e., high-risk patients who had not died on follow-up) from 4

244 ic risk assessment may be useful to identify high-risk patients who have the greatest potential to be

245 , which can be used to identify low-risk and high-risk patients who may benefit from earlier clinical

246 A risk-adapted strategy could help identify high-risk patients who may benefit from more intensive a

247 ion (PCI), can influence physicians to avoid high-risk patients who may benefit from treatment.

248 obstruction at the time of PPCI may identify high-risk patients who might benefit from further adjuva

249 Among intermediate- and high-risk patients who received TAVR in the PARTNER (Pla

250 High-risk patients who undergo surgery might require reg

251 For high-risk patients who were MRD negative, 5-year rates w

252 er a VTE polygenic risk score could identify high-risk patients who would derive the greatest VTE red

253 scatheter Mitral Valve Replacement System in High Risk Patients with Severe, Symptomatic Mitral Regur

254 Intermediate- and high-risk patients with a mean tacrolimus <6 ng/ml versu

255 abiraterone acetate with prednisone in these high-risk patients with a suboptimal response to hormona

256 mplete or ambiguous evidence for identifying high-risk patients with acute respiratory distress syndr

257 s study sought to compare DOACs with LAAC in high-risk patients with AF.

258 From B cells of high-risk patients with AML with potent and lasting GVL

259 r more aggressive LDL-lowering strategies in high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular d

260 s) vs warfarin largely focused on recruiting high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation with more th

261 ICD therapy is an effective therapy in high-risk patients with BrS.

262 al disease; thus, they should not be used in high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease.

263 ion CD19 CAR-T cells are highly effective in high-risk patients with CLL after they experience treatm

264 to ibrutinib in relapsed and treatment-naive high-risk patients with CLL failed to show improvement i

265 n coronary artery (LM) is frequently used in high-risk patients with coexisting aortic stenosis and L

266 azithromycin as an outpatient treatment for high-risk patients with coronavirus 19 should be increas

267 /IHC, PREMM(5) identified 84.2% and 83.3% of high-risk patients with CRC/EC and oncology clinic CRC p

268 VR procedure provided acceptable outcomes in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses or fai

269 Whether these results are consistent in high-risk patients with diabetes, who have fared relativ

270 of immunomodulatory drugs as maintenance in high-risk patients with DLBCL.

271 e implantation is an established therapy for high-risk patients with failed surgical aortic bioprosth

272 IEAT is frequent in high-risk patients with FN and BSI, despite high adheren

273 h 1500- versus 3000-mg daily sodium meals in high-risk patients with heart failure.

274 idate for primary mold-active prophylaxis in high-risk patients with hematologic malignancies or hema

275 improves clinical outcomes vs usual care in high-risk patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction

276 In high-risk patients with HFrEF, a strategy of NT-proBNP-g

277 or, reduces heart failure hospitalization in high-risk patients with HFrEF.

278 apse specimens, which identified a subset of high-risk patients with inferior post-ASCT outcomes in t

279 n 2, is being developed for hospitalized and high-risk patients with influenza A.

280 herapy for lowering cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with LDL-C levels >=70 mg/dL on maxim

281 L-3 could be used as a biomarker to identify high-risk patients with multiple myeloma that exhibited

282 results of the CHANCE trial (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients With Non-disabling Cerebrovascular Ev

283 blinatumomab showed antileukemia activity in high-risk patients with Ph(+) ALL who had relapsed or we

284 Even in high-risk patients with pre-lymphodepletion serum LDH le

285 d ICD versus conventional medical therapy in high-risk patients with primary percutaneous coronary in

286 To compare overall survival in high-risk patients with primary uveal melanoma who recei

287 High-risk patients with progressing symptomatic disease

288 ant, the use of observation for low-risk and high-risk patients with prostate cancer is correlated at

289 VA-ECMO enables stabilization and may rescue high-risk patients with refractory CS at low overall ris

290 High-risk patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) wh

291 gests that intravenous treatment for 2 wk in high-risk patients with SAB without endocarditis and abs

292 ment (TAVR) has revolutionized management of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

293 cell (RBC) counts and reticulocyte levels in high-risk patients with T2DM receiving insulin.

294 M and assess whether this score can identify high-risk patients with T2DM who have the greatest reduc

295 thresholds defining high-volume centers and high-risk patients with the CHAID method.

296 c opportunities to improve the prognosis for high-risk patients with TNBC.

297 Recent studies have shown that high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)

298 eported episodes of AF/AFL adverse events in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

299 High-risk patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segmen

300 atin was enhanced in patients with DM and in high-risk patients without DM.