Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:10376516rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0012356lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10376516lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0012359lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10376516lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0038257lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10376516lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10376516lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707689lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:dateCreated1999-7-29lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:abstractTextWe aimed to determine the effects of simulated stent side-branch dilatation and subsequent redilatation of the central lumen. Following coronary stent implantation it may be necessary to dilate through the side of a stent to maintain branch patency. Branch dilatation through the side of 3.5-mm-diameter stents (AVE GFX, beStent, Crown, MultiLink, and NIR) was simulated in a plexiglass phantom using 2.5-, 3.0-, 3.5-, and 4.0-mm balloons. In further experiments, the main lumen was redilated with a 3.5-mm balloon after 3.0-mm side-branch dilatation. Thereafter, a 3.5-mm central and a 3.0-mm side-branch balloon were simultaneously inflated ("kissing balloons"). The larger the balloon size used for side-branch dilatation, the greater the distortion of the stent immediately distal to the side-branch, which for a 4.0-mm balloon ranged from 36% +/- 2% (Crown) to 65% +/- 6% (NIR). Central lumen redilatation or kissing balloons abolished this stenosis with little reduction of the side-lumen diameter. The main stent lumen compromise caused by side-branch dilatation can be abolished by main-lumen redilatation or by kissing balloons.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:monthJunlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:issn1522-1946lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:authorpubmed-author:StewartJ TJTlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:authorpubmed-author:WhiteH DHDlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:authorpubmed-author:WebsterM WMWlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ScottD SDSlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:authorpubmed-author:OrmistonJ AJAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:authorpubmed-author:RuygrokP NPNlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:volume47lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:pagination258-64lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:dateRevised2010-11-18lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10376516...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10376516...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10376516...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10376516...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10376516...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:year1999lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:articleTitleStent deformation following simulated side-branch dilatation: a comparison of five stent designs.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:affiliationMercy Angiography, Mercy Hospital, Epsom, Auckland, New Zealand. johno@mercyangiography.co.nzlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10376516pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:10376516lld:pubmed