Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis.

<h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Yusuke Watanabe [verfasserIn] Kenichi Sakakura [verfasserIn] Yousuke Taniguchi [verfasserIn] Kei Yamamoto [verfasserIn] Masaru Seguchi [verfasserIn] Takunori Tsukui [verfasserIn] Hiroyuki Jinnouchi [verfasserIn] Hiroshi Wada [verfasserIn] Shin-Ichi Momomura [verfasserIn] Hideo Fujita [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: PLoS ONE - Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2007, 15(2020), 11, p e0241836
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:15 ; year:2020 ; number:11, p e0241836

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1371/journal.pone.0241836

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ054632293

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ054632293
003	DE-627
005	20230308183502.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ054632293
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJcccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Yusuke Watanabe \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis.
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a <h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule.
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
653		0	\|a Science
653		0	\|a Q
700	0		\|a Kenichi Sakakura \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Yousuke Taniguchi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Kei Yamamoto \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Masaru Seguchi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Takunori Tsukui \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Hiroyuki Jinnouchi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Hiroshi Wada \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Shin-Ichi Momomura \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Hideo Fujita \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t PLoS ONE \|d Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2007 \|g 15(2020), 11, p e0241836 \|w (DE-627)523574592 \|w (DE-600)2267670-3 \|x 19326203 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:15 \|g year:2020 \|g number:11, p e0241836
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/cccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_34
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_171
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_235
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2522
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 15 \|j 2020 \|e 11, p e0241836

Indexfelder

author_variant	y w yw k s ks y t yt k y ky m s ms t t tt h j hj h w hw s i m sim h f hf
matchkey_str	article:19326203:2020----::oprsnflnclucmsfnrvsuautaoncliidoueewepruaeucrnritretowtvruwtotoain
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054632293 (DE-599)DOAJcccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yusuke Watanabe verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis. 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Medicine R Science Q Kenichi Sakakura verfasserin aut Yousuke Taniguchi verfasserin aut Kei Yamamoto verfasserin aut Masaru Seguchi verfasserin aut Takunori Tsukui verfasserin aut Hiroyuki Jinnouchi verfasserin aut Hiroshi Wada verfasserin aut Shin-Ichi Momomura verfasserin aut Hideo Fujita verfasserin aut In PLoS ONE Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2007 15(2020), 11, p e0241836 (DE-627)523574592 (DE-600)2267670-3 19326203 nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:11, p e0241836 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_34 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_235 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 11, p e0241836
spelling	10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054632293 (DE-599)DOAJcccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yusuke Watanabe verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis. 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Medicine R Science Q Kenichi Sakakura verfasserin aut Yousuke Taniguchi verfasserin aut Kei Yamamoto verfasserin aut Masaru Seguchi verfasserin aut Takunori Tsukui verfasserin aut Hiroyuki Jinnouchi verfasserin aut Hiroshi Wada verfasserin aut Shin-Ichi Momomura verfasserin aut Hideo Fujita verfasserin aut In PLoS ONE Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2007 15(2020), 11, p e0241836 (DE-627)523574592 (DE-600)2267670-3 19326203 nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:11, p e0241836 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_34 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_235 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 11, p e0241836
allfields_unstemmed	10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054632293 (DE-599)DOAJcccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yusuke Watanabe verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis. 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Medicine R Science Q Kenichi Sakakura verfasserin aut Yousuke Taniguchi verfasserin aut Kei Yamamoto verfasserin aut Masaru Seguchi verfasserin aut Takunori Tsukui verfasserin aut Hiroyuki Jinnouchi verfasserin aut Hiroshi Wada verfasserin aut Shin-Ichi Momomura verfasserin aut Hideo Fujita verfasserin aut In PLoS ONE Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2007 15(2020), 11, p e0241836 (DE-627)523574592 (DE-600)2267670-3 19326203 nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:11, p e0241836 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_34 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_235 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 11, p e0241836
allfieldsGer	10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054632293 (DE-599)DOAJcccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yusuke Watanabe verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis. 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Medicine R Science Q Kenichi Sakakura verfasserin aut Yousuke Taniguchi verfasserin aut Kei Yamamoto verfasserin aut Masaru Seguchi verfasserin aut Takunori Tsukui verfasserin aut Hiroyuki Jinnouchi verfasserin aut Hiroshi Wada verfasserin aut Shin-Ichi Momomura verfasserin aut Hideo Fujita verfasserin aut In PLoS ONE Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2007 15(2020), 11, p e0241836 (DE-627)523574592 (DE-600)2267670-3 19326203 nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:11, p e0241836 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_34 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_235 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 11, p e0241836
allfieldsSound	10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054632293 (DE-599)DOAJcccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Yusuke Watanabe verfasserin aut Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis. 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier <h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Medicine R Science Q Kenichi Sakakura verfasserin aut Yousuke Taniguchi verfasserin aut Kei Yamamoto verfasserin aut Masaru Seguchi verfasserin aut Takunori Tsukui verfasserin aut Hiroyuki Jinnouchi verfasserin aut Hiroshi Wada verfasserin aut Shin-Ichi Momomura verfasserin aut Hideo Fujita verfasserin aut In PLoS ONE Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2007 15(2020), 11, p e0241836 (DE-627)523574592 (DE-600)2267670-3 19326203 nnns volume:15 year:2020 number:11, p e0241836 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/cccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_34 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_235 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2020 11, p e0241836
language	English
source	In PLoS ONE 15(2020), 11, p e0241836 volume:15 year:2020 number:11, p e0241836
sourceStr	In PLoS ONE 15(2020), 11, p e0241836 volume:15 year:2020 number:11, p e0241836
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Medicine R Science Q
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	PLoS ONE
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Yusuke Watanabe @@aut@@ Kenichi Sakakura @@aut@@ Yousuke Taniguchi @@aut@@ Kei Yamamoto @@aut@@ Masaru Seguchi @@aut@@ Takunori Tsukui @@aut@@ Hiroyuki Jinnouchi @@aut@@ Hiroshi Wada @@aut@@ Shin-Ichi Momomura @@aut@@ Hideo Fujita @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	523574592
id	DOAJ054632293
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ054632293</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308183502.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1371/journal.pone.0241836</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ054632293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJcccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yusuke Watanabe</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a"><h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kenichi Sakakura</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yousuke Taniguchi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kei Yamamoto</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Masaru Seguchi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Takunori Tsukui</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hiroyuki Jinnouchi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hiroshi Wada</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shin-Ichi Momomura</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hideo Fujita</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">PLoS ONE</subfield><subfield code="d">Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2020), 11, p e0241836</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)523574592</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2267670-3</subfield><subfield code="x">19326203</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:11, p e0241836</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/cccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_34</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_235</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">11, p e0241836</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Yusuke Watanabe
spellingShingle	Yusuke Watanabe misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis.
authorStr	Yusuke Watanabe
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)523574592
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	19326203
topic_title	Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis
topic	misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q
topic_unstemmed	misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q
topic_browse	misc Medicine misc R misc Science misc Q
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	PLoS ONE
hierarchy_parent_id	523574592
hierarchy_top_title	PLoS ONE
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)523574592 (DE-600)2267670-3
title	Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis.
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ054632293 (DE-599)DOAJcccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a
title_full	Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis
author_sort	Yusuke Watanabe
journal	PLoS ONE
journalStr	PLoS ONE
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Yusuke Watanabe Kenichi Sakakura Yousuke Taniguchi Kei Yamamoto Masaru Seguchi Takunori Tsukui Hiroyuki Jinnouchi Hiroshi Wada Shin-Ichi Momomura Hideo Fujita
container_volume	15
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Yusuke Watanabe
doi_str_mv	10.1371/journal.pone.0241836
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis
title_auth	Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis.
abstract	<h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule.
abstractGer	<h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule.
abstract_unstemmed	<h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_34 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_235 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	11, p e0241836
title_short	Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis.
url	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836 https://doaj.org/article/cccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203
remote_bool	true
author2	Kenichi Sakakura Yousuke Taniguchi Kei Yamamoto Masaru Seguchi Takunori Tsukui Hiroyuki Jinnouchi Hiroshi Wada Shin-Ichi Momomura Hideo Fujita
author2Str	Kenichi Sakakura Yousuke Taniguchi Kei Yamamoto Masaru Seguchi Takunori Tsukui Hiroyuki Jinnouchi Hiroshi Wada Shin-Ichi Momomura Hideo Fujita
ppnlink	523574592
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1371/journal.pone.0241836
up_date	2024-07-03T23:59:04.200Z
_version_	1803604348597436416
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ054632293</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308183502.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1371/journal.pone.0241836</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ054632293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJcccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yusuke Watanabe</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a"><h4<Objectives</h4<This study aimed to compare the mid-term clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-calcified nodules between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without rotational atherectomy (RA).<h4<Background</h4<There has been a debate whether to use RA for the revascularization of calcified nodule. Although RA can ablate the calcified structure within calcified nodule and may facilitate adequate stent expansion, RA may provoke severe coronary perforation, because calcified nodule typically shows eccentric calcification.<h4<Methods</h4<We included 204 lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule, and divided into 73 lesions treated with RA (RA group) and 131 lesions without RA (non-RA group). After propensity-score matching, 42 lesions with RA (matched RA group) and 42 lesions without RA (matched non-RA group) were selected. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups before and after propensity-score matching. The primary endpoint was ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) within 1 year.<h4<Results</h4<Acute lumen area gain on IVUS was comparable between the matched RA group and matched non-RA group (3.9 ± 2.1 mm2 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6 mm2, p = 0.18). The stent malapposition at calcified nodules was frequently observed in both groups. The ischemia-driven TVR was not different between the 2 groups before (p = 0.82) and after propensity score-matching (p = 0.87).<h4<Conclusions</h4<The use of RA could not reduce the incidence of ischemia-driven TVR in lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule. Our results do not support the routine use of RA for lesions with IVUS-calcified nodule.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kenichi Sakakura</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yousuke Taniguchi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kei Yamamoto</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Masaru Seguchi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Takunori Tsukui</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hiroyuki Jinnouchi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hiroshi Wada</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shin-Ichi Momomura</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hideo Fujita</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">PLoS ONE</subfield><subfield code="d">Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2020), 11, p e0241836</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)523574592</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2267670-3</subfield><subfield code="x">19326203</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:11, p e0241836</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/cccdca2668a1473495780e7766c9f28a</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241836</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_34</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_235</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">11, p e0241836</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400717

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparison of clinical outcomes of intravascular ultrasound-calcified nodule between percutaneous coronary intervention with versus without rotational atherectomy in a propensity-score matched analysis.

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?