Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

16
275
3
8

Year Published

2009
2009
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 433 publications
(302 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
16
275
3
8
Order By: Relevance
“…[147][148][149] Several studies comparing CABG to PCI, however, indicated that the advantage of CABG consists primarily of fewer repeat revascularizations. 139,[149][150][151][152][153][154][155] The study by Brener et al 156 indicates no significant mortality difference between PCI and CABG after 3 years of follow-up. Longer-term follow-up is needed.…”
Section: Recommendations For Pci For Unprotected Left Main Coronary Amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[147][148][149] Several studies comparing CABG to PCI, however, indicated that the advantage of CABG consists primarily of fewer repeat revascularizations. 139,[149][150][151][152][153][154][155] The study by Brener et al 156 indicates no significant mortality difference between PCI and CABG after 3 years of follow-up. Longer-term follow-up is needed.…”
Section: Recommendations For Pci For Unprotected Left Main Coronary Amentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At 3 years, the risk of restenosis requiring target-vessel revascularization was significantly higher in patients that received stents than in those who underwent surgical revascularization, but there was no significant difference in the risk of death or in the cumulative endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between the two groups. While the need for repeat revascularization was greater after bare metal stent implantation as compared to drug-eluting stents, there was a slight increase in death and in the composite end point in those patients that received drug-eluting stents [3]. Additional studies have also compared drug-eluting stents and bare metals stents in the setting of unprotected LM interventions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinical variables entered into the propensity model were age, body weight, gender, Child-Pugh score and ECOG-PS, which indicated variables we frequently take into account in daily clinical practice when we decide initial dose of sorafenib (20). Subsequently, a one-to-one match between the standard-dose group (800 mg/day of sorafenib) and the half-dose group (400 mg/day of sorafenib) was obtained by using the nearestneighbor matching method (21,22).…”
Section: Standard-dose Groupmentioning
confidence: 99%