ライフサイエンスコーパス: sirolimus-eluting stent

1 everolimus-eluting stent is as effective as sirolimus-eluting stent.

2 n >2 weeks were randomized to everolimus- or sirolimus-eluting stent.

3 ing stent was found to be noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent.

4 limus-eluting stent and 1384 patients to the sirolimus-eluting stent.

5 on lesions underwent crush-stenting with the sirolimus-eluting stent.

6 itaxel-eluting stent (0.39 [0.24-0.62]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.32 [0.18-0.50]) are associate

7 itaxel-eluting stent (0.35 [0.13-0.76]), and sirolimus-eluting stent (0.36 [0.11-0.86]) for target ve

8 balloons (DCB), -9.4% (-17.4 to -1.4) versus sirolimus-eluting stents, -10.2% (-18.4 to -2.0) versus

9 d trials involving 878 patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents, 1400 treated with paclitaxel-e

10 f 1261 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent (1590 lesions) and 1264 patients

11 clitaxel-eluting stent (81% increase) and to sirolimus-eluting stent (47% increase).

12 onary intervention were randomly assigned to sirolimus-eluting stent (533) or control bare stent (525

13 igned (1:1) to receive biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (969 patients) or durable-polym

14 A novel, absorbable-coating sirolimus-eluting stent (AC-SES) was evaluated for its c

15 l randomised trials of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-e

16 site end point occurred in 10.5% for MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent and in 11.5% for Xience everolim

17 rred in 346 (32.5%) in the group receiving a sirolimus-eluting stent and in 342 (33.1%) in the group

18 abetes mellitus group, 131 patients received sirolimus-eluting stents and 148 patients received bare

19 abetes mellitus group, 402 patients received sirolimus-eluting stents and 376 patients received bare

20 bosis after 1 year was more common with both sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents t

21 ting stents, 5 trials (n=7370) of EES versus sirolimus-eluting stents, and 1 trial (n=2292) of EES ve

22 a pooled group of paclitaxel-eluting stents, sirolimus-eluting stents, and zotarolimus-eluting stents

23 Food and Drug Administration approval of the sirolimus-eluting stent (April 2003 to December 2003).

24 Rapamycin (sirolimus)-eluting stents are associated with reduced re

25 In the sirolimus-eluting stent arm, in-stent late loss correlat

26 as also decreased in the group that received sirolimus-eluting stents, as assessed by both angiograph

27 The Firehawk biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) has a fully biodegradab

28 evaluating the Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES; 60 and 80 mum strut thi

29 Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) proved noninferior to

30 cy and safety of biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES; Yukon Choice PC) versu

31 experimental approach, we created two novel sirolimus-eluting stent coatings with quite distinct dos

32 The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer

33 clinical outcomes of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer

34 er and endothelial integrity was impaired in sirolimus-eluting stent compared with both everolimus-el

35 Implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents

36 nsitivity-like reactions associated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (CYPHER, Cordis Corp., Miami Lak

37 thrombosis and hypersensitivity reactions to sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher).

38 c, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson) (BMS, n = 65), sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher, Cordis) (SES, n = 69),

39 d deployment of second-generation thin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents (DES group).

40 Sirolimus-eluting stents dramatically improved the clini

41 red with 72 patients (5.2%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end poin

42 patients who received biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents for complex percutaneous corona

43 de novo coronary artery lesions], E-SIRIUS [Sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of patients with

44 achytherapy group and 97.3% (250/257) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P = .28).

45 achytherapy group and 19.8% (45/227) for the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]

46 brachytherapy group and 8.5% (22/259) of the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.3-3.9]

47 of 883 patients in the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and 41 (10%) of 427 patien

48 patients (3.6%) in the biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 32 of 979 patients

49 nt had occurred in 40 patients (5.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6.5%)

50 ations occurred in 12 patients (1.7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1.4%) in

51 up, minimal lumen diameter was larger in the sirolimus-eluting stent group at 6-month follow-up (mean

52 with complex coronary lesions, the use of a sirolimus-eluting stent had a consistent treatment effec

53 ng drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amoun

54 ing stent versus 105 (7.6%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confide

55 s pharmacokinetics in neonates who underwent sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in the arterial duc

56 In neonates after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation, peak sirolimus lev

57 te were validated in porcine coronary artery sirolimus-eluting stents implants.

58 linical outcomes in patients enrolled in the Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Lesio

59 outcomes in patients enrolled in the SIRIUS (Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in De-Novo Native Coronary Lesio

60 paring the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery

61 imus-eluting stent with the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary total

62 n of Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coron

63 teries], and C-SIRIUS [Canadian study of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients wit

64 r probability that the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent is non-inferior to the durable p

65 Sirolimus-eluting stents may have clinical advantages ov

66 Vascular brachytherapy (n = 125) or the sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 259).

67 gned to treatment with bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer ever

68 this analysis was to determine the impact of sirolimus-eluting stents on outcomes of diabetic compare

69 trathin strut (60 mum) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolim

70 ltrathin-strut biodegradable polymer MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent or to thin-strut permanent polym

71 nts were randomly assigned to receive either sirolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and five d

72 ized to receive either biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable-polymer, slow-releas

73 ance of the ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everoli

74 with a standard stent to 8.6 percent with a sirolimus-eluting stent (P<0.001)--a reduction that was

75 from 25% with bare metal stents to 9.2% with sirolimus-eluting stents (P<0.001) and from 16.5% to 6.5

76 om 22.3% with bare metal stents to 6.9% with sirolimus-eluting stents (P<0.001) and in nondiabetic pa

77 tion-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus eluting stent, paclitaxel eluting stent, evero

78 s similar between vascular brachytherapy and sirolimus-eluting stent patients (mean [SD], 16.76 [8.55

79 abetic patients treated with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents (PES and SES).

80 sus early generation permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SES; Cypher) at 10-year fol

81 ar brachytherapy and 12.4% (32/259) with the sirolimus-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 1.7; 95% co

82 Sirolimus-eluting stents result in superior clinical and

83 Placement of the sirolimus-eluting stent results in continued clinical im

84 At 1 year, sirolimus-eluting stent revascularization rates are comp

85 rate of stent thrombosis when compared with sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.38; 95% CrI, 0.21-0.74),

86 d with BMS (reference rate ratio [RR] of 1), sirolimus eluting stent (RR, 0.46; 95% credibility inter

87 taxel-eluting stent (RR=1.57 [1.15-2.19]) or sirolimus-eluting stent (RR=1.43 [1.06-1.97]) was associ

88 omotion between MgBRS and permanent metallic sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) at 12-month follow-up in S

89 angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for unprotect

90 trasound (IVUS) to evaluate recurrence after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation treatment of

91 out causes of intimal hyperplasia (IH) after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation.

92 ine the predictors of stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation.

93 efficacy and safety of a balloon expandable, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients with symptomat

94 (PES) and is noninferior or superior to the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in terms of safety and eff

95 ordis/Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus bare-metal stent (B

96 acy of multiple (> or =2) overlapping Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (Johnson & Johnson, New B

97 ency of incomplete stent apposition (ISA) in sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and clarify its findings

98 an BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and less ST than BES.

99 in late lumen loss between first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting st

100 rolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus those of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are unknown.

101 ated with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) for coronary artery steno

102 um stent area (MSA) for long-term patency of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) implantation compared to

103 nvestigated the long-term clinical impact of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in comparison with bare-m

104 s-eluting stents (EES) with first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in primary percutaneous c

105 al risk factors for ST in patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in the "real world" after

106 nded randomized study that demonstrated that sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) significantly improved an

107 ded randomized study which demonstrated that sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) significantly improved an

108 Sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) were also associated with

109 omes for everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

110 ing percutaneous coronary intervention using sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

111 ZES) with a phosphorylcholine polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

112 tion-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES], paclitaxel-eluting stent

113 a total of 406 lesions-197 BMS, 209 DES (103 sirolimus-eluting stents [SES] and 106 paclitaxel-elutin

114 Recently, sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) have been shown to drama

115 Sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs) reduce angiographic rest

116 Randomized clinical trials have shown that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces restenosis

117 ving simple coronary lesions indicate that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces the risk o

118 Sirolimus-eluting stents significantly decrease revascul

119 However, among patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents, there remains a trend toward a

120 ed in a double-blind randomized trial of the sirolimus-eluting stent to document whether the initial

121 of the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimu

122 pisodes of stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents versus none in patients with ba

123 The biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to currently use

124 after PCI, the use of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to the use of d

125 Supraflex is a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coa

126 d patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer coa

127 MS trials (RAVEL [Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with a Standard Stent for Corona

128 a randomized, double-blind trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent in 1058 pa

129 Nine neonates received a single sirolimus-eluting stent with a total sirolimus dose of 2

130 d effectiveness of the biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with the durable-polymer zotarol