ライフサイエンスコーパス: metal stent

1 with drug-eluting stents and 3201 with bare-metal stents).

2 occurred in 7.2% DCS patients and 7.2% bare metal stent.

3 parable to that in patients receiving a bare metal stent.

4 ith diabetes mellitus (DM) treated with bare-metal stent.

5 nt and 50% for patients who preferred a bare metal stent.

6 on) in the FP-PES compared with PES and bare metal stent.

7 thrombosis rates were 2.0% DCS and 2.2% bare metal stent.

8 , has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent.

9 mpared with both everolimus-eluting and bare metal stents.

10 monly found in drug-eluting stents than bare-metal stents.

11 s delayed in patients with DESs but not bare metal stents.

12 cardial infarction in DES compared with bare-metal stents.

13 es, and relative outcomes of DES versus bare metal stents.

14 0.001) were higher in DES compared with bare-metal stents.

15 s, who had similar outcomes with DES or bare metal stents.

16 ients with both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents.

17 5% CI, 0.15-1.19; P = .10) treated with bare-metal stents.

18 Administration-approved drug-eluting or bare-metal stents.

19 ng stents compared with those receiving bare-metal stents.

20 luting stents and 861 who received only bare metal stents.

21 duced by RSG in SESs but not in PESs or bare metal stents.

22 , particularly in the area of self-expanding metal stents.

23 r ST-elevation myocardial infarction to bare-metal stents.

24 d on both MP35N metal alloy coupons and bare metal stents.

25 -eluting stents, and 6461 received only bare-metal stents.

26 ularization at 1 year, as compared with bare-metal stents.

27 cedures as compared with treatment with bare-metal stents.

28 lity to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents.

29 hs after stent implantation, similar to bare-metal stents.

30 tic stent to be comparable to self-expanding metal stents.

31 t therapy longer than is necessary with bare-metal stents.

32 with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents.

33 vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal stents.

34 drug-eluting stents in comparison with bare-metal stents.

35 erosis was a common dominant finding in bare metal stents.

36 her contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents.

37 was consistent with that expected from bare metal stents.

38 lic biolimus-eluting stents and control bare metal stents.

39 ts without DM or in any group receiving bare-metal stents.

40 ng compared with everolimus-eluting and bare metal stents.

41 82, p=0.019), and in patients with only bare-metal stents (10.0 vs 12.2%, HR 0.80, p=0.003).

42 ith paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents (10.0% vs. 22.9%; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% C

43 ding covered stent grafts compared with bare-metal stents (10.6% versus 3.4%; P=0.02).

44 8 coronary artery bypass grafting, 5011 bare metal stents, 11 844 DES) from 2004 to 2009.

45 with PES (10.95 mm(2) [9.64-12.46]) and bare metal stent (13.83 mm(2) [11.53-17.03]; P<0.001).

46 he competing risk of death was 18% with bare metal stents, 19% with DES, and 6% with coronary artery

47 balloon angioplasty (341% increase) to bare metal stent (218% increase) to paclitaxel-eluting stent

48 mpared with 749 patients who received a bare-metal stent, 2257 patients who received a paclitaxel-elu

49 therapy, -23.4% (-36.2 to -10.8) versus bare metal stents, -24.2% (-32.2 to -16.4) versus balloon ang

50 F were more likely to be treated with a bare-metal stent (27% vs. 18%).

51 ed with drug-eluting stents, 1,687 with bare-metal stents), 30.7% presented with MI.

52 ifference in ST between drug-coated and bare-metal stents (4.4% versus 3.4%; P=0.55), but the rate of

53 s (62%), was more prevalent in DES than bare-metal stents (68% versus 36%; P=0.02), and demonstrated

54 red with PES (54.16% [42.60-61.97]) and bare metal stent (74.52% [47.23-100.00]; P<0.001).

55 (2257 patients) or otherwise identical bare-metal stents (749 patients).

56 hed groups, mortality was similar after bare-metal stenting (9.8%) and paclitaxel-eluting stenting (8

57 , self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone or plastic stents combined with irrig

58 r self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone, followed by direct endoscopic necros

59 lower for drug-eluting stents than for bare-metal stents among all patients with myocardial infarcti

60 farction rates compared with the use of bare metal stents among all race/ethnicity groups except Hisp

61 s, but optimum treatment strategies for bare metal stent and drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis (

62 percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stenting and met our study criteria.

63 ealed binary restenosis rates of 27% in bare metal stents and 0% in drug-eluting stents, with mean di

64 occurred in 54.7% of all patients with bare-metal stents and 48.7% of patients with drug-eluting ste

65 cations such as anchoring of self-expandable metal stents and bariatric therapy, both primary and sec

66 ts receiving drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents and bivalirudin alone versus heparin plus a

67 (ST) have included mostly patients with bare metal stents and early-generation drug-eluting stents (D

68 DS AND Animals receiving SESs, PESs, or bare metal stents and either RSG (3 mg/kg per day) or placebo

69 re assessed in rabbits receiving ZES or bare-metal stents and Mf or placebo by scanning electron micr

70 e highlights the limitations of conventional metal stents and the potential benefits of using BRSs in

71 ilar after excluding patients receiving bare metal stents and using an alternative MACE definition th

72 ere treated with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and whether use was standard or off-label.

73 t for CoA, including angioplasty alone, bare metal stenting, and primary covered stent therapy.

74 comes for drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents, and most are relatively small randomized c

75 g metal stents in the form of lumen-apposing metal stents appear to be superior to plastic stents for

76 State-of-the-art drug-eluting metal stents are the gold standard for interventional tr

77 tratified analysis compared with the LF bare metal stent arm patients as controls.

78 greatest in ECs farthest from intact SMCs in metal stented arteries and altogether absent after sirol

79 revascularization with drug-eluting and bare metal stents associates with a high risk of in-stent res

80 ed balloon angioplasty for treatment of bare-metal stent (BMS) and drug-eluting stent (DES) restenosi

81 rapy is safer and more effective than a bare-metal stent (BMS) for patients with high risk of bleedin

82 taxel-eluting stent (PES) and a similar bare-metal stent (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions.

83 ng diabetic patients, especially when a bare-metal stent (BMS) is used.

84 rcetin (Q)-eluting stent with that of a bare metal stent (BMS) on neointimal hyperplasia and re-endot

85 minal angioplasty (PTA) and provisional bare-metal stent (BMS) placement.

86 y) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus bare-metal stent (BMS) randomized trials.

87 ed with drug-eluting balloon (DEB) plus bare-metal stent (BMS) versus BMS versus drug-eluting stent (

88 ow tract obstruction is possible with a bare metal stent (BMS), although this treatment causes pulmon

89 rtery wall healing in comparison with a bare metal stent (BMS).

90 with superior performance to a clinical bare metal stent (BMS).

91 sluminal angioplasty (PTA) and bail-out bare metal stenting (BMS) is hampered by restenosis.

92 3] to 7.7 [5.4, 9.9], P<0.0001), behind bare metal stents (BMS) (18.5 [13.2, 23.8] to 12.0 [6.7, 17.3

93 -blind, randomized trials of PES versus bare-metal stents (BMS) (n = 3,513).

94 mproved clinical outcomes compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) among a nationally representative, no

95 ess of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) among patients >/=85 years of age.

96 fficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less well

97 term clinical outcomes differed between bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) by dura

98 Human coronary bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES) from au

99 es at bifurcation after implantation of bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

100 h VLST and compare the findings between bare-metal stents (BMS) and drug-eluting stents (DES).

101 percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stents (BMS) and first-generation and second-gener

102 ug-eluting stents (n-DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and old-generation drug-eluting stent

103 ymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by means of a network meta-analysis.

104 platforms, previous generation DES, and bare-metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary interventio

105 s between drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) for STEMI.

106 ) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) has not been studied in the kidney tr

107 The introduction of bare-metal stents (BMS) has represented a major advancement o

108 ed everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with ST-se

109 f drug-eluting stents (DES) relative to bare-metal stents (BMS) in DM is uncertain.

110 ir long-term safety relative to that of bare-metal stents (BMS) in general use remains uncertain.

111 as equal risks but higher efficacy than bare-metal stents (BMS) in long femoropopliteal artery diseas

112 ug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare-metal stents (BMS) in octogenarian patients with angina.

113 drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in older patients with chronic kidney

114 el revascularization in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with chronic kidney disea

115 different drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation

116 g stents (PES) and otherwise equivalent bare metal stents (BMS) in ST-segment elevation myocardial in

117 ess of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in SVG-PCI are unclear.

118 eluting stents (SES) in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS) in treatment of focal infrapopliteal

119 s-eluting stents (EES) in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

120 comparing DEB with EES in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR).

121 ew-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear.

122 Drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents (BMS) may increase late stent thrombosis (S

123 paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) versus bare metal stents (BMS) on distal vessels in the serial intra

124 imate the relative impact of DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) on safety and efficacy end points, pa

125 oronary intervention (PCI) using either bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES).

126 unique drug fast-release profile versus bare-metal stents (BMS) under similar durations of dual-antip

127 ity among drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) while adjusting for many confounding

128 al balloon coronary angioplasty (PTCA), bare-metal stents (BMS), and drug-eluting stents (DES) succee

129 stent resolute), against each other or bare metal stents (BMS), and enrolling >/= 50 patients with S

130 roved efficacy and safety compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), and international guidelines recomme

131 repeat revascularizations compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), but their effects on death and myoca

132 th higher rate of late ST compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), especially in patients with ST-segme

133 tervention to SVG in patients receiving bare-metal stents (BMS), first-generation DES, and newer gene

134 Compared with bare metal stents (BMS), first-generation drug-eluting stents

135 nd between 1 and 5 years after PCI with bare-metal stents (BMS), first-generation drug-eluting stents

136 s into superior outcomes, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), for the full spectrum of patients tr

137 on the restenosis benefit of DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS), the incremental risk of stent thromb

138 drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS), the relative risk of stent thrombosi

139 ting stents (DES) and for 6 weeks after bare metal stents (BMS).

140 vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents (BMS).

141 ffolds were assessed in comparison with bare metal stents (BMS).

142 o paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or to bare-metal stents (BMS).

143 omes (at 9 and 12 months) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS).

144 receiving drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS).

145 litaxel-eluting stents (PES) or EXPRESS bare metal stents (BMS).

146 ") with a comparable group treated with bare-metal stents (BMS).

147 stents (DP-DES) and as safe >1 year as bare-metal stents (BMS).

148 types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in these

149 Four of the RCTs used bare metal stents (BMS; ERACI II, ARTS, SoS, MASS II) and fou

150 olimus from a biodegradable polymer and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in the COMFORTABLE trial (Comparison

151 eointimal proliferation of a therapy of bare metal stents (BMSs) postdilated with the paclitaxel drug

152 afety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) with respect to stent thrombosis (ST

153 required more durable biliary decompression (metal stents) but was not associated with local tumor pr

154 rom myocardial infarction compared with bare metal stents, but increase the risk of stent thrombosis,

155 stents reduce restenosis compared with bare metal stents, but there is growing concern that drug-elu

156 His airway had been maintained by metal stents, but, after failure, a cadaveric donor trac

157 Small case series of blocked self-expanding metal stent clearance using RFA have been published.

158 ntly different in patients treated with bare metal stents compared with drug-eluting stents (1.4% ver

159 raft implantation and/or placement of a bare metal stent, complications, and follow-up images were ev

160 nts reduce restenosis rates relative to bare-metal stents, concerns have been raised that drug-elutin

161 to characterize NA in 65 (51 DES and 14 bare-metal stents) consecutive symptomatic patients with in-s

162 ) and PES (n=12) was compared against a bare metal stent control (n=12; Innova, Boston Scientific, MA

163 The MGuard, a bare metal stent covered with a polymer mesh, was designed to

164 Covered self-expandable metal stents (CSEMS), intended for palliation of maligna

165 s mellitus, stent type (drug-eluting or bare metal stent), CYP2C19 genetic status, loading dose of as

166 ly available, fully covered, self-expanding, metal stent (diameter 18 mm, length 120 mm) to bridge a

167 drug-eluting stent and 38.5% received a bare-metal stent (drug-eluting stent era cohort).

168 d the effects of RSG on SESs, PESs, and bare metal stents endothelialization.

169 only bare-metal stents were available (bare-metal stent era cohort) and 28,086 similar patients who

170 Relative to the bare-metal stent era, patients treated in the drug-eluting st

171 tudies from the balloon angioplasty and bare metal stent eras have demonstrated that coronary artery

172 Fully covered self-expandable metal stents (Fc-SEMSs) have a challenging use in the tr

173 ent of a single fully-covered self-expanding metal stent (FCSEMS) may offer safe and effective treatm

174 rictures using a novel type of fully covered metal stent (FCSEMS).

175 Fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS) are gaining acceptance for the tre

176 ble stents, and fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMSs), for the treatment of RBES.

177 For bare metal stent, first-generation DES and second-generation

178 ronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet th

179 hown to be cost-effective compared with bare-metal stents for select clinical trial patients, whether

180 (BVS), a promising alternative to permanent metal stents for treatment of coronary heart disease.

181 ely related to the permanent presence of the metal stent frame or polymer.

182 system receiving either drug-eluting or bare metal stents from 2002 to 2006.

183 placement of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FSEMS), a partially covered SEMS (PSEMS) or

184 fidence interval 0.22 to 0.95]) and the bare-metal stent group (0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.26 to

185 irolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.20) and 1.3% in the paclitaxel-st

186 clitaxel-stent group versus 0.9% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.30).

187 roup and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage poin

188 group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage poin

189 irolimus-stent group versus 0.4% in the bare-metal-stent group and 0.9% in the paclitaxel-stent group

190 clitaxel-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group.

191 -eluting stent showed similar safety as bare-metal stent >12 months and between 6 and 12 months and a

192 l-eluting stents and those treated with bare-metal stents had similar 12-month rates of death (3.5% a

193 s receiving drug-eluting stents (versus bare-metal stents) had a lower 30-month mortality (IPW HR: 0.

194 ts, as compared with those who received bare-metal stents, had significantly lower 12-month rates of

195 ng upon whether a drug-eluting stent or bare-metal stent has been implanted.

196 of approved drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents have shown additional cases of late stent t

197 olymer and 49 patients (8.7%) receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80

198 stents and 19.8% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.85;

199 stents and 17.1% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interva

200 interval [CI], 0.61, 0.82; P<0.01) and bare metal stents (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76, 0.96; P=0.01) as w

201 0.70; 95% CI, 0.64, 0.84) compared with bare metal stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79, 0.98; interaction

202 ry be delayed until 30 to 45 days after bare-metal stent implantation and 1 year after drug-eluting s

203 be postponed for at least 4 weeks after bare metal stent implantation and 6-12 months after drug-elut

204 lective surgery is 46 to 180 days after bare-metal stent implantation or >180 days after drug-eluting

205 d by provisional self-expanding nitinol bare-metal stent implantation with a strategy of systematic D

206 In comparison with bare-metal stent implanted >12 months before surgery, old-gen

207 e drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who

208 A9 Drug Coated Stent Versus the Gazelle Bare Metal Stent in Patients With High Risk of Bleeding [LEAD

209 trend toward supremacy of the self-expanding metal stent in this arena.

210 Clinical presentation of bare metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients underg

211 ted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

212 of drug-eluting stents as compared with bare-metal stents in all groups.

213 loon angioplasty in six trials and with bare-metal stents in four trials.

214 with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents in randomized clinical trials, although the

215 in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty; NCT011

216 ive risks of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in specific high-risk groups require furthe

217 drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents in the composite outcome of death from any

218 vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents in the extremely elderly.

219 tents may have clinical advantages over bare-metal stents in the extremely proliferative environment

220 BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Self-expanding metal stents in the form of lumen-apposing metal stents

221 g-eluting stent performance relative to bare metal stents in the setting of acute myocardial infarcti

222 f drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, in patients with ST-segment elevation myoc

223 data to compare the efficacy of EES in bare-metal stent ISR and DES-ISR.

224 Patients with bare-metal stent ISR declined from 2.6% in 2009 Q3 to 0.9% in

225 reported between drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR groups in terms of device-oriented compo

226 tment of complex drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR lesions might be associated with accepta

227 lts of 94 patients treated with EES for bare-metal stent ISR were compared with those of 155 patients

228 challenging than that of patients with bare-metal stent ISR.

229 atients with DES-ISR than in those with bare-metal stent ISR.

230 al drainage using large-bore, self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone or plasti

231 stic stents and irrigation or self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone, followed

232 biolimus-eluting stent (n = 575) or the bare-metal stent (n = 582).

233 77 ISR lesions) distributed as follows: bare metal stent (n=388), first-generation DES (n=425), and s

234 ent with paclitaxel DEB and provisional bare-metal stenting (n = 90) or PES implantation (n = 92).

235 el-coated balloon angioplasty (N=3543), bare-metal stenting (N= 2045) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent

236 sclerosis (n =10) or implanted coronary bare-metal stents (n = 10, 3.5-mm diameter, day 7 post-implan

237 eluting stents (n=46) and patients with bare-metal stents (n=24).

238 drug-eluting stents versus contemporary bare-metal stents on rates of death, myocardial infarction, r

239 , HR 0.36, p<0.0001), and in those with bare-metal stents only (1.27 vs 2.41%, HR 0.52, p=0.0009).

240 g RSG compared to RSG animals receiving bare metal stent or PESs.

241 in patients presenting with ISR within bare-metal stents or DES.

242 ch as conventional balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stents, or drug-eluting stents) for the treatment

243 4.4% with both drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents (P=0.98) and 4.3% versus 4.6% in patients r

244 ges were not significant (DES, P=0.086; bare-metal stent, P=0.296).

245 ) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-E

246 , there was no change in the percent of bare-metal stent patients reporting clopidogrel use at 6-mont

247 within 6 months compared with 64.2% of bare metal stent patients.

248 As compared with patients with bare-metal stents, patients with drug-eluting stents had a hi

249 rtality included balloon angioplasty or bare-metal stent placement compared with drug-eluting stent p

250 days (P < .001) and decreased following bare metal stent placement from 402 to 309 days (P < .001).

251 en 1992 and 2010, 27 patients underwent bare-metal stent placement in the ventricular septum or subva

252 In contrast, MACE rates with bare metal stent placement increased from 4.3% in 2005 to 8.0

253 o 13% after angioplasty, 0% to 5% after bare metal stent placement, and <1% after covered stent place

254 ES placement, and 5608 (33.7%) followed bare metal stent placement.

255 rolimus-eluting, sirolimus-eluting, and bare metal stent placement.

256 , fractional flow reserve measurements, bare-metal stents, postprocedural medications, and radial acc

257 yst drainage, the placement of an expandable metal stent proved to be useful.

258 Self-expanding metal stents remain an important option for the treatmen

259 ty of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with ST-s

260 Treatment of bare metal stent restenosis using PEB led to significantly le

261 with favorable results for treatment of bare-metal stent restenosis.

262 luting stents (EES) in the treatment of bare metal stent restenosis.

263 esh-covered stent compared with conventional metal stents resulted in superior rates of epicardial co

264 balloon angioplasty or with the use of bare-metal stents, results in greater relief from angina and

265 tes were 14.5% for DES versus 23.0% for bare metal stents (risk difference, -8.5%; P<0.001), an impla

266 tic stent (PS) group and the self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) group.

267 mercially available uncovered self-expanding metal stent (SEMS).

268 diotherapy and placement of a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS).

269 Although self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) remain patent longer than plastic st

270 Only bare metal stents showed complete re-endothelialization at 28

271 itaxel-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, significantly reduced angiographic evidenc

272 With bare-metal stents, single-stent approaches appear to be super

273 ations of plain balloon angioplasty and bare-metal stents, some limitations apply, most notably a chr

274 receive a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a bare metal stent (stent randomisation; stratified by pharmaco

275 tial Double-Blind Drug-Eluting Stent vs Bare-Metal Stent Study, NCT00233805; The Study of the BX Velo

276 t that a self-expandable, esophageal covered metal stent (SX-ELLA Danis; Ella-CS, Hradec Kralove, Cze

277 consisting of fully covered self-expandable metal stents that were placed across the strictures.

278 Compared with a bare-metal stent, the use of biolimus-eluting stents with a b

279 of a double flanged covered self-expandable metal stent through mechanical hemostasis.

280 DES use decreased by 41% and bare metal stent use increased by 85% from 2006 to 2007.

281 Compared with bare metal stent use, DES use was generally associated with s

282 Relative to bare metal stent use, drug-eluting stent use was associated w

283 differences in outcomes for DES versus bare metal stents using a 2-stage least squares instrumental

284 A bare metal stent was implanted in the dorsal abdominal aorta

285 was 45 to 180 days, the event rate for bare-metal stents was 2.6%, approaching that of intermediate-

286 d a balanced mixture of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents was not significantly more effective than a

287 g human coronary artery sections with a bare metal stent, we demonstrate the expression of Fn-EDA in

288 tober 2002 through March 2003 when only bare-metal stents were available (bare-metal stent era cohort

289 scularization) with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents were compared using inverse probability wei

290 When bare metal stents were deployed in malapposed or overlapping

291 drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents were determined from vital-statistics recor

292 receiving either drug-eluting stents or bare metal stents were included.

293 nhibitor and use of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents were not significant predictors of reinfarc

294 ed stents, and 11.2% balloon expandable bare metal stents) were placed in 692 renal arteries, 156 sup

295 Many people will do well with a bare-metal stent, whereas for individuals with a high likelih

296 ting stents as compared with those with bare-metal stents, whereas the risk of repeat revascularizati

297 The MGuard is a novel thin-strut metal stent with a polyethylene terephthalate micronet c

298 irolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and effic

299 ients randomized to drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents with successful stenting documented by free

300 Whether the use of bare-metal stents would yield different results is unknown.