ライフサイエンスコーパス: target vessel revascularization

1 ath, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization).

2 iac events (death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization).

3 (MACE: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization).

4 ts (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization).

5 c death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization).

6 th, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization).

7 all-cause death, AMI recurrance, stroke, and target vessel revascularization).

8 e of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization).

9 ath, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization).

10 sting of cardiac death, nonfatal AMI, or any target vessel revascularization.

11 farction (MI), definite stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization.

12 as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

13 of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

14 mposite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

15 site of death, myocardial infarction, or any target vessel revascularization.

16 arction, stent thrombosis, heart failure, or target vessel revascularization.

17 XUS Liberte versus TAXUS Express for 9-month target vessel revascularization.

18 was death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularization.

19 There was no association between MEDS and target vessel revascularization.

20 ter PCI with reduced rates of restenosis and target vessel revascularization.

21 get vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

22 respect to death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

23 inical restenosis, as judged by the need for target vessel revascularization.

24 s myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization.

25 y) phase for death, reinfarction, and urgent target vessel revascularization.

26 to a lower risk of myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization.

27 vidual components of the primary outcome and target vessel revascularization.

28 ch included death/myocardial infarction (MI)/target vessel revascularization.

29 (0.32 [0.18-0.50]) are associated with lower target vessel revascularization.

30 rolimus-eluting stent (0.36 [0.11-0.86]) for target vessel revascularization.

31 ts: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

32 of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.

33 of overall death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

34 non-target vessels, and clinically indicated target-vessel revascularization.

35 of these patients will still require repeat target-vessel revascularization.

36 t was due entirely to the decreased need for target-vessel revascularization.

37 stent thrombosis (definite or probable), and target-vessel revascularization.

38 target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularization.

39 dial infarction (TV-MI), or ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularization.

40 The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization.

41 .97), stent thrombosis (0.44, 0.27 to 0.72), target vessel revascularization (0.74, 0.61 to 0.89), an

42 nfarction, 1.27; and hazard ratio for urgent target-vessel revascularization, 1.26), and the differen

43 391 [6.7%] vs 22 of 318 [7.2%]; P = .80) and target vessel revascularization (129 of 1391 [9.7%] vs 3

44 scularization (11.6% versus 11.8%; P=0.329), target vessel revascularization (14.0% versus 13.1%; P=0

45 or mortality rate (0.6% versus 1.6%; P=.14), target-vessel revascularization (17.1% versus 19.7%; P=.

46 on remained associated with a higher risk of target vessel revascularization (18% versus 7.3%; OR, 3.

47 CI: 0.26 to 2.18, p = 0.6) and the need for target vessel revascularization (2% vs. 6%; HR: 0.32: 95

48 cardiac death (0.3% versus 0.3%; P=1.0) and target vessel revascularization (2.9% versus 3.0%; P=1.0

49 rdial infarctions (0% versus 1.1%, P=0.007), target-vessel revascularizations (2.4% versus 5.8%, P=0.

50 .1% versus 19.6%; P<0.0001), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (20.4% versus 14.0% vers

51 ure (death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization, 21.1% versus 24.8%; P=.

52 4.3% versus 3.8%; P=0.0007), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (22.8% versus 13.0%; P=0

53 hic restenosis (27% versus 56%, P=0.002) and target vessel revascularization (26% versus 68%, P<0.001

54 (34% vs. 71%, p < 0.0001), driven by reduced target vessel revascularization (27% vs. 71%, p < 0.0001

55 and major adverse cardiac events, including target vessel revascularization (29.4% versus 61.3%; P<0

56 , stent thrombosis (2.1% vs. 0.4%, P=0.002), target-vessel revascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002)

57 rel vs. 7.4% for prasugrel; P<0.001), urgent target-vessel revascularization (3.7% vs. 2.5%; P<0.001)

58 0.42 to 0.96, p = 0.03), a trend toward less target vessel revascularization (31% vs. 15%, hazard rat

59 %, P:=0.04), and adverse cardiac events plus target vessel revascularization (32% versus 14%, P:=0.05

60 rval [CI], 0.24-0.86; P = .01); for ischemic target vessel revascularization, 34 (17.5%) vs 20 (10.5%

61 4%) including death (9%), Q-wave MI (9%) and target vessel revascularization (36%).

62 ompared with BMS, each DES reduced long-term target-vessel revascularization (39%-61%), but the magni

63 2 [1.0%] vs 19 of 365 [5.2%]; P = .001), and target vessel revascularization (4 of 382 [1.0%] vs 19 o

64 ial infarction (13% versus 11%; P=0.66), and target vessel revascularization (4% versus 7%; P=0.24) r

65 ce interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.83; P=0.002) and target-vessel revascularization (5.8% vs. 8.7%; hazard r

66 e (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization; 6% vs. 8%; hazard ratio

67 confidence interval, 1.02-2.08; P=0.037) and target vessel revascularization (7.0% versus 2.4%, respe

68 ial infarction (8.7% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.01) and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.00

69 range 12.8 to 50.9 months), 13.1% underwent target vessel revascularization, 71.4% were alive, and 7

70 rtality (2.6 versus 0%, P<0.01) and need for target vessel revascularization (8 versus 2%, P=0.03) we

71 to 0.98), mainly driven by a lower need for target vessel revascularization (8% vs. 16%; p = 0.035).

72 was associated with a lower rate of repeated target-vessel revascularization (8.1 percent) than was s

73 The primary end point was the rate of target-vessel revascularization 9 months after the study

74 red less target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization (9 [13.8%] and 17 [26.2%

75 on was associated with a higher incidence of target vessel revascularization (9.12% versus 5.78%; OR,

76 difference in major adverse cardiac events (target vessel revascularization, acute myocardial infarc

77 .86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.97); target vessel revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio,

78 erval, 1.69-3.23; P<0.0001), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio,

79 Abciximab reduced target vessel revascularization among nondiabetic patien

80 ondary end points included clinically driven target vessel revascularization, amputation rates, and c

81 During the 36-month follow-up, 130 target vessel revascularization and 14 target vessel myo

82 event rate of unstable angina, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization and death from all cause

83 Kaplan-Meier estimated 5-year rates of target vessel revascularization and recurrent SCAD were

84 ath, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or urgent target vessel revascularization and superior in preventi

85 Although adverse clinical outcomes including target-vessel revascularization and bleeding events were

86 ty and in-hospital myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization) and in-hospital major b

87 Efficacy (target vessel revascularization) and safety (death, myoc

88 e angina, repeat coronary revascularization (target vessel revascularization), and stroke at 1 year.

89 peat revascularization (urgent or elective), target vessel revascularization, and a composite of deat

90 nt of death, major stroke, major amputation, target vessel revascularization, and bypass) according t

91 econdary endpoints include amputation rates, target vessel revascularization, and changes in Rutherfo

92 of off-label and untested use, 1-year repeat target vessel revascularization, and composite of death,

93 tality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI.

94 Unplanned revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and major bleeding not

95 l endpoint consisted of death, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization, and new congestive hear

96 rdiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke (MACE).

97 ion (MI), nonfatal MI requiring readmission, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revas

98 ienced lower rates of death/MI, nonfatal MI, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revas

99 th, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revas

100 point (death, myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, and thrombotic bailout

101 d point of the study was the ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization as detected with myocard

102 infarction (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.17-0.54) and target vessel revascularization at 1 year (OR, 0.54; 95%

103 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 1 year after the inte

104 th, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 1 year based on post-

105 The incidence of target vessel revascularization at 1 year was 30.5%, 18.

106 mposite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months) occurred i

107 d point of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months.

108 CS, hospitalization for unstable angina, and target vessel revascularization at 2 years [major advers

109 all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 24 months.

110 ce the combined risk of death, MI, or urgent target vessel revascularization at 28 days (reduction, 1

111 r of major adverse cardiovascular events and target vessel revascularization at 3 years.

112 f death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 30 days (11.7% versus

113 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days by intention

114 ncidence of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days, occurred in

115 e of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularization at 48 h or 30 days.

116 Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 9 months.

117 myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 year.

118 myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 year.

119 h, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization at 30 days.

120 The rate of ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at nine months was reduc

121 el myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at the 1-year follow-up.

122 re (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 1 year.

123 of death, reinfarction, stroke, or ischemic target vessel revascularization) at 3-year follow-up in

124 ts (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 30 days.

125 events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) at 6 months.

126 re (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months postprocedu

127 ts (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months.

128 death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) at maximum follow-up (m

129 E) (death, reinfarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) at six months between g

130 percent vs. 16.9 percent, P=0.02) or needed target-vessel revascularization because of ischemia (7.7

131 of death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, or target-vessel revascularization because of ischemia occu

132 ficantly reduced the risk of ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, but have been associate

133 ization by 65% (7.4% vs. 20.9%, p = 0.0008), target vessel revascularization by 53% (11.3% vs. 24%, p

134 benefited from DES with lower risk of repeat target vessel revascularization by percutaneous coronary

135 zation by 73% (4.4% versus 15.1%, P<0.0001), target-vessel revascularization by 62% (7.1% versus 17.1

136 The primary end point, ie, clinically driven target-vessel revascularization by 8 months, was observe

137 es acute angiographic results, and decreases target vessel revascularization compared to PTCA alone.

138 y shown to reduce the risk of restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared with bare metal

139 and bleeding and a significant reduction in target vessel revascularization compared with bare metal

140 stent restenosis and the need for subsequent target vessel revascularization compared with bare-metal

141 Target vessel revascularization, defined as clinically d

142 post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombos

143 The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombos

144 ot significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombos

145 endpoint was the 30-day composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombos

146 et vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, did not differ between

147 ting target vessel myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization during 36 months of foll

148 outcomes of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization during the index admissi

149 h, recurrent myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularization (efficacy end point), ma

150 At 1 year, the rate of ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization for DES and BMS groups w

151 , recurrent ischemia (3.8%) and predischarge target vessel revascularization for ischemia (1.3%).

152 cular events, including death, reinfarction, target-vessel revascularization for ischemia, and stroke

153 is, a strong trend was preserved in terms of target vessel revascularization (harzard ratio, 1.55; 95

154 ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27-1.02; P=0.05) and target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95%

155 CI, 1.72-7.14; P=0.01) and increased risk of target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.82; 95%

156 4-2.00; P=0.0002) and 3-year ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95%

157 1.34; 95% confidence interval: 1.05 to 1.70; target vessel revascularization: hazard ratio: 1.40; 95%

158 ifference in periprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD

159 P=0.54), with a significant 55% reduction in target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.37

160 rction (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.97), and target vessel revascularization (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.48

161 (OR 7.14, 95% CI 3.28 to 15.5) and ischemic target vessel revascularization (I-TVR) (OR 15.0, 95% CI

162 incidence of target lesion revascularization/target vessel revascularization in both genders.

163 luting stents (DES) might reduce the rate of target vessel revascularization in comparison with bare-

164 andomized trials have shown that DES prevent target vessel revascularization in selected patients, bu

165 cular events, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with

166 IRT, 21.6% versus placebo, 4.7%; P=0.04) and target vessel revascularization (IRT, 21.5% versus place

167 th, myocardial infarction, stroke, or urgent target-vessel revascularization (ischaemic outcome) and

168 h, myocardial infarction, stroke, and urgent target vessel revascularization (ischemic outcome); and

169 rate of death, reinfarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, major bleeding, sepsis,

170 ined as freedom from target limb amputation, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction,

171 le rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction,

172 o difference in bleeding, rehospitalization, target-vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction,

173 -cause death, any myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 36.9% for PF

174 Target vessel revascularization occurred in 7.4% at 1 ye

175 up (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.24-1.34; P =.19) and target vessel revascularization occurred in 8.6% of the

176 Although target vessel revascularization occurred less often in D

177 cumulative event rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target-vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients

178 cardiac events (cardiac death, MI, or repeat target vessel revascularization) occurred in 16.8% of X-

179 ved vessel flow and does not protect against target vessel revascularization or recurrent SCAD.

180 events (death, reinfarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization or stroke; 29.9% versus

181 ar events (OR, 0.73, CI, 0.51-1.05; P=0.09), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.0; CI, 0.95-1.05;

182 ospital (composite of reinfarction, ischemic target vessel revascularization, or death, as well as th

183 ath, recurrent myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, or major bleeding (net

184 ardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, target vessel revascularization, or major hemorrhage.

185 d point was defined as a composite of death, target vessel revascularization, or nonfatal myocardial

186 tes of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis.

187 predictors of cost and selectively examining target vessel revascularization, or those without prior

188 death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent target vessel revascularization, or type 2, 3, or 5 blee

189 eath, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization, or reocclusion 1 year a

190 ardiovascular event but a lower incidence of target vessel revascularization over a mean follow-up of

191 s were noted for recurrent MI (p = 0.11) and target vessel revascularization (p = 0.06).

192 rtality (p = 0.57), recurrent MI (p = 0.32), target vessel revascularization (p = 0.19), or final inf

193 on, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters.

194 = 0.004), mainly driven by a higher rate of target vessel revascularization (PF-PES: 35.7%; PB-PES:

195 Stenting likely decreases the need for target-vessel revascularization procedures in diabetic p

196 due entirely to differences in the rates of target-vessel revascularization (ranging from 15.7 perce

197 ntly higher annualized myocardial infarction/target vessel revascularization rate compared with SIHD

198 one year was 14.5% vs. 13.8% (p = 0.69), and target vessel revascularization rate was 19.6% vs. 17.3%

199 sion revascularization rate was 26%, and the target vessel revascularization rate was 34%; all rates

200 roximal LAD subgroup (n = 126), the one-year target vessel revascularization rate was 7.9% with the T

201 h a >42% probability that EES had the lowest target-vessel revascularization rate.

202 6 BMS), the risk-adjusted mortality, MI, and target vessel revascularization rates at 3 years were 17

203 ital major adverse cardiac events and 1-year target vessel revascularization rates have declined by a

204 on rates were 2.6% and 12.2% (p = 0.03), and target vessel revascularization rates were 9.2% and 20%

205 chromium-EES, SES, and BES also having lower target-vessel revascularization rates than PES.

206 %; P=0.33) and with significant reduction in target vessel revascularization (risk difference, -8.3%;

207 ompared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06;

208 osite of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, target-vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, signi

209 cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stroke, and major bleed

210 site of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, and major bleed

211 t was defined as death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious blee

212 rt-term (</= 1 year) and long-term efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascula

213 te of death and myocardial infarction and in target vessel revascularization than diabetics assigned

214 tes of mortality, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization than BMS treatment in si

215 convey prognostic information on subsequent target vessel revascularizations (TLR).

216 larization (66.7% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.0001) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (70.6% vs. 22.9%,

217 registries; n = 10,156), point estimates for target vessel revascularization (TVR) (PES: 5.8%, 95% CI

218 udy assessed the geographical differences in target vessel revascularization (TVR) after percutaneous

219 erest included death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR) and a combined end

220 troke was evaluated, as was the incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and non-TVR during

221 present study was to determine the rates of target vessel revascularization (TVR) and to determine p

222 patients had a significantly higher rate of target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year (adjuste

223 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year (adjuste

224 Target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 3 years was one

225 Ischemic target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 30 days occurre

226 e of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 30 days, compar

227 h, reinfarction, or any (urgent or elective) target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 6 months by int

228 ts, 30-day major adverse cardiac events, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 6 to 9 months.

229 were death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 9 months.

230 incidence of repeat in-stent restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR) at follow-up was d

231 sion revascularization (TLR) beyond 30 days, target vessel revascularization (TVR) beyond 30 days, an

232 ness was defined as the incremental cost per target vessel revascularization (TVR) event avoided and

233 al hemoglobin A1c (A1c) and the incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) in diabetic patien

234 6 +/- 1.80 vs. 8.09 +/- 1.90 mm2, p = 0.36), target vessel revascularization (TVR) rate at nine-month

235 s, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) rates were similar

236 ac death/myocardial infarction (MI), MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) than BMS and lower

237 nts, had significantly lower rates of 1-year target vessel revascularization (TVR) than BMS, with SES

238 failed radiation, the mean time to the first target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 173 +/- 127 da

239 At 1 year follow-up, the incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 53% in the PTC

240 nd point of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR) was analyzed as ti

241 g cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite sten

242 arction (MI), combined death or nonfatal MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and procedure cos

243 type for death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombo

244 of death, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR), and unplanned GP

245 restenosis, as assessed by the need for late target vessel revascularization (TVR), is unknown.

246 ) on the frequency of stent thrombosis (ST), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarc

247 g cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis,

248 ardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR).

249 group and death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR).

250 of the three analyzed segments in predicting target vessel revascularization (TVR).

251 cluded death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR).

252 ndency for less frequent need for subsequent target vessel revascularization (TVR, 21% versus 38%, P=

253 infarction (AMI), which necessitates repeat target-vessel revascularization (TVR) in approximately 2

254 site end point of death, MI, ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization (TVR), or disabling stro

255 -month death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target-vessel revascularization (TVR).

256 death (7.6% versus 3.0%, P<0.001), ischemic target-vessel revascularization (TVR; 16.7% versus 12.1%

257 death, myocardial infarction [MI], or urgent target vessel revascularization [TVR]) was lower among c

258 6-month event-free survival rate of 78% (six target vessel revascularizations [TVRs], four non-TVRs).

259 The composite of death, MI, or target vessel revascularization was 14.2% in eptifibatid

260 The 1-year rate of target vessel revascularization was 5.0% in DES and 9.2%

261 of death, myocardial infarction, and urgent target vessel revascularization was 5.4%, and Thrombolys

262 h DCB alone (P=0.241), and clinically driven target vessel revascularization was 8% (n=3) versus 14%

263 n rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization was identified in patien

264 Conversely, target vessel revascularization was reduced by stent/pla

265 However, target vessel revascularization was reduced in nondiabet

266 er with tirofiban, survival was similar, and target vessel revascularization was reduced, which trans

267 ons occurred among patients with stents, and target vessel revascularization was required in only one

268 The 1-year rate of target vessel revascularization was significantly higher

269 The 5-year incidence of target vessel revascularization was significantly lower

270 Target vessel revascularization was similar in both grou

271 At 9 months, target-vessel revascularization was 9.1% in the TAXUS gr

272 The rate of target-vessel revascularization was higher in hospitals

273 including death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization was observed in 60 (28.7

274 ave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) was decreased 59% in th

275 dpoint (death, myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization) was determined.

276 of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) was significantly reduc

277 The rates of target vessel revascularization were 13.4% versus 18.3%

278 standard use, significantly higher rates of target vessel revascularization were associated with off

279 ndependent predictors of the ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization were BMS implantation (o

280 Risk-adjusted mortality and target vessel revascularization were compared.

281 procedure-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were seen in 15.8% in th

282 Rates of target lesion and target vessel revascularization were significantly highe

283 ic target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization were significantly incre

284 nonfatal myocardial infarction and need for target vessel revascularization were similar among patie

285 spective rates for myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization were 8.3% versus 10.3% (

286 The late rates of target-vessel revascularization were reduced with all DE

287 of death, myocardial infarction, and urgent target vessel revascularization) were prospectively moni

288 l myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, were evaluated by multi

289 ial infarction, stent thrombosis, and urgent target vessel revascularization, were observed with the

290 nstrated marked and comparable reductions in target vessel revascularization with DES compared with B

291 incidence of ST, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization with second-generation D

292 atistically significant reduction in rate of target vessel revascularization, with the point estimate

293 e of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularization within 14 days; and phar

294 h, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization within 9 months and was

295 as death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization within 1 year.

296 cardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-vessel revascularization within 2 years.

297 ted with substantial decrease in the risk of target vessel revascularization without compromising saf

298 lower incidence of myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization without increased incide

299 e highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target-vessel revascularization without an increase in a

300 ficacy at 5 years in terms of a reduction in target vessel revascularization, without an increase in