コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 an everolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent.
2 ical-appearing, slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent.
3 ons in different vessels were treated with a paclitaxel-eluting stent.
4 tion-approved indications for sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents.
5 of 365 [5.2%]; P = .001) when compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents.
6 disease were randomized to CABG or PCI with paclitaxel-eluting stents.
7 vents in patients with high scores receiving paclitaxel-eluting stents.
8 rame, and lower in patients not treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents.
9 clitaxel-eluting balloon (0.43 [0.18-0.80]), paclitaxel-eluting stent (0.35 [0.13-0.76]), and sirolim
10 luting cutting balloon (0.054 [0.0017-0.5]), paclitaxel-eluting stent (0.39 [0.24-0.62]), and sirolim
11 =0.013, in all patients; in patients without paclitaxel-eluting stents, 0.18% versus 0.17%, P=0.91).
12 wer with everolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P=0.02 for myo
14 luting stents, -10.2% (-18.4 to -2.0) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, -19.2% (-28.2 to -10.4) versu
15 stent diameter less than 3 mm, smoking, and paclitaxel-eluting stent; 2 points each for history of c
16 t elevation myocardial infarction to receive paclitaxel-eluting stents (2257 patients) or otherwise i
17 d, including 5 trials (n=7113) of EES versus paclitaxel-eluting stents, 5 trials (n=7370) of EES vers
18 similar after bare-metal stenting (9.8%) and paclitaxel-eluting stenting (8.8%; HR=0.93 [95% CI, 0.62
19 ease) to bare metal stent (218% increase) to paclitaxel-eluting stent (81% increase) and to sirolimus
21 035), while among patients randomized to the paclitaxel-eluting stents, ACS was an independent predic
22 efficacy of the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent after implantation in a broad c
23 R rate did not differ for PCB angioplasty of paclitaxel-eluting stent and non-paclitaxel-eluting sten
24 tributed patients treated with TAXUS Liberte paclitaxel-eluting stent and prasugrel to the Dual Antip
25 y) were similar in the group that received a paclitaxel-eluting stent and the group that received a b
26 tients (34.2%), 237 of whom were assigned to paclitaxel-eluting stents and 213 to bare-metal stents.
29 0.27%, P=0.02, in patients not treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents), and higher at 30 to 33 month
30 sirolimus-eluting stents, 1400 treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents, and 2267 treated with bare-me
31 ss and safety of bivalirudin monotherapy and paclitaxel-eluting stenting are sustained at 3 years for
32 support the benefit of using a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent as a first-line stent-based int
33 in 3.0 percent of the group that received a paclitaxel-eluting stent, as compared with 11.3 percent
34 were undergoing primary PCI, implantation of paclitaxel-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal s
36 that used a higher dose of paclitaxel (ASian Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent Clinical trial [ASPECT], Europe
37 follow-up, patients with ACS assigned to the paclitaxel-eluting stent compared to the control stent h
38 ientific, Marlborough, MA), a polymer-coated paclitaxel-eluting stent, compared with BMSs for the tre
39 improved late outcomes compared with BMS and paclitaxel-eluting stents, considering the latest follow
41 imal studies, the European evaLUation of the pacliTaxel Eluting Stent (ELUTES) pilot clinical trial (
42 nical trial [ASPECT], European evaLUaTion of paclitaxel Eluting Stents [ELUTES], and DELIVER-I) (RR =
43 nt and polymer DES (sirolimus eluting stent, paclitaxel eluting stent, everolimus-eluting stent [EES]
44 inol Stent Versus Systematic Implantation of Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Femoropopl
45 and A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization
46 nts in the VBT group and 191 patients in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (96.5% and 97.9%, respect
47 as a significantly higher 1-year rate in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group than in the everolimus-el
48 implanted in 22 patients (10.9%) and in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group, multiple stents were req
49 In total, 23 patients in both the BMS and paclitaxel-eluting stents groups died or had an MI event
50 re-metal stent, 2257 patients who received a paclitaxel-eluting stent had lower rates of ischaemia-dr
51 with everolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents had significantly reduced 2-ye
52 and in 342 (33.1%) in the group receiving a paclitaxel-eluting stent (hazard ratio: 0.96; 95% confid
54 to determine whether the relative benefit of paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation compared with bare
55 We sought to investigate the outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in patients with u
57 o investigate the human coronary response to paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation, using serial opti
58 e period with most biological activity after paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation, when the prolifer
60 revascularization rate in the Polymer-Based Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in Patients with Coronary Arter
62 aphic outcomes of the TAXUS Moderate Release paclitaxel-eluting stent in the treatment of long, compl
63 h everolimus-eluting stents as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 12 prespecified subgroups,
64 metal stents, implantation of polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stents in LAD lesions is safe, and re
65 omized Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Arte
68 tal stents, the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent is safe and markedly reduces th
70 =3543), bare-metal stenting (N= 2045) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (N=684), and combined paclitax
71 S) to evaluate the effects of polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stents on in-stent neointima formatio
72 ligible, randomly allocated 3:1 to receive a paclitaxel-eluting stent or a bare metal stent (stent ra
73 ents were randomized 1:1 to receive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an everolimus-eluting stent.
74 who were undergoing PCI to receive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an everolimus-eluting stent.
75 nts were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents; we then
77 undergo either PCI with sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents or CABG on a background of opt
79 educed ischemic events for the TAXUS Liberte paclitaxel-eluting stent patient subset from DAPT throug
80 ularization was performed in 290 BMS and 135 paclitaxel-eluting stent patients, resulting in 11 and 4
82 s (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) among the large cohort of
83 hic restenosis and clinical events between a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and a similar bare-metal
84 oCr-EES) is superior to the first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) and is noninferior or sup
85 of the novel platinum chromium TAXUS Element paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) compared with the TAXUS E
86 ting stent (EES) compared with a widely used paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) resulted in a statistical
89 ation scores decreased significantly, behind paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) (14.1 [11.9, 16.3] to 7.
90 rvention patients were randomized to receive paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) (n = 662) or identical-a
91 oing percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and bare-metal stents (B
92 l-arm, factorial, randomized trial comparing paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and otherwise equivalent
93 stent thrombosis associated with the use of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) compared to bare-metal s
94 of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for the reduction of res
95 es of patients treated with first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for unprotected left mai
96 s (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in diabetic and nondiabe
97 sought to examine the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with diabete
98 between everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in the SPIRIT (Clinical
99 m onset were randomized 3:1 to TAXUS EXPRESS paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or EXPRESS bare metal st
100 h clinical outcomes of patients treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or sirolimus-eluting ste
101 T-segment elevation myocardial infarction to paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or to bare-metal stents
102 Therefore, we investigated the impact of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) versus bare metal stents
103 is (ST), and myocardial infarction than BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting s
106 polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES], paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES], everolimus-eluting stent
107 (103 sirolimus-eluting stents [SES] and 106 paclitaxel-eluting stents [PES])-with implant duration >
108 te the safety and efficacy of a polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stent (PF-PES) versus a polymer-based
109 bare-metal in-stent restenotic lesions with paclitaxel-eluting stents rather than angioplasty follow
110 res was effective only in patients receiving paclitaxel-eluting stents (RD, -7.55 percentage points [
111 trated that the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent reduces angiographic restenosis
112 ed from 26.6 percent to 7.9 percent with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk, 0.30; 95 percen
113 nt to 4.7 percent with the implantation of a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk, 0.39; 95 percen
114 t therapy with prasugrel after TAXUS Liberte paclitaxel-eluting stent remains unknown, but appears to
116 an everolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent resulted in reduced angiographi
117 tus, everolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents resulted in substantial 2-year
118 Everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, resulted in reduced rates of
119 luting stent (RR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.74), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.39; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.73),
120 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.36-0.56), paclitaxel eluting stent (RR, 0.69; 95% CrI, 0.53-0.87),
121 BG (reference rate ratio [RR]=1.0), PCI with paclitaxel-eluting stent (RR=1.57 [1.15-2.19]) or siroli
122 with VBT and 14.5% (25 of 172 patients) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30-0.71;
125 HER, Cordis Corp., Miami Lakes, Florida) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (TAXUS, Boston Scientific Corp.
126 D, Saluggia, Italy) versus permanent-polymer paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus Liberte, Boston Scienti
127 g stents (Cypher, Cordis) (SES, n = 69), and paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus, Boston Scientific, Nat
128 t of de novo coronary disease using a single pAclitaXel elUting Stent [TAXUS]-I, -II, -IV, and -VI) (
129 c events (2.4% versus 6.3%, P=0.0009) in the paclitaxel-eluting stent than in the control stent group
130 nary restenosis was significantly lower with paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents (1
131 ommon with both sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents.
132 fter percutaneous coronary intervention with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus stents eluting rapamyci
133 (P=0.025) and nine episodes in patients with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus two in patients with ba
134 with everolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, we pooled the databases from
135 and coronary artery disease undergoing PCI, paclitaxel-eluting stents were not shown to be noninferi
136 ry intervention (PCI) using first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents with coronary artery bypass gr
137 y of coronary everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to angiographic f
138 Everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to the primary en
140 ites to receive everolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents without routine follow-up angi