These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
42. Reliability of the interpretation of coronary angiography by the simple visual method. Guimaraes JA; Victor EG; de Britto Leite MR; Gomes JM; Victor Filho E; Reyes Liveras J Arq Bras Cardiol; 2000 Apr; 74(4):300-8. PubMed ID: 10967582 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Assessing coronary stenosis. Quantitative coronary angiography versus visual estimation from cine-film or pharmacological stress perfusion images. Gottsauner-Wolf M; Sochor H; Moertl D; Gwechenberger M; Stockenhuber F; Probst P Eur Heart J; 1996 Aug; 17(8):1167-74. PubMed ID: 8869857 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Comparison by quantitative angiographic assessment of coronary stenoses of one view showing the severest narrowing to two orthogonal views. Lesperance J; Hudon G; White CW; Laurier J; Waters D Am J Cardiol; 1989 Sep; 64(8):462-5. PubMed ID: 2528280 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Relation of clinical presentation, stenosis morphology, and operator technique to the procedural results of rotational atherectomy and rotational atherectomy-facilitated angioplasty. Ellis SG; Popma JJ; Buchbinder M; Franco I; Leon MB; Kent KM; Pichard AD; Satler LF; Topol EJ; Whitlow PL Circulation; 1994 Feb; 89(2):882-92. PubMed ID: 8313578 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Improving detection of coronary morphological features from digital angiograms. Effect of stenosis-stabilized display. Eigler NL; Eckstein MP; Mahrer KN; Whiting JS Circulation; 1994 Jun; 89(6):2700-9. PubMed ID: 8205684 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Reliability of the quantitative angiographic measurements in the New Approaches to Coronary Intervention (NACI) registry: a comparison of clinical site and repeated angiographic core laboratory readings. Popma JJ; Lansky AJ; Yeh W; Kennard ED; Keller MB; Merritt AJ; DeFalco RA; Desai A; Pacera JH; Schnabel JF; Niedermeyer V; Baim DS; Detre KM Am J Cardiol; 1997 Nov; 80(10A):19K-25K. PubMed ID: 9409689 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Effect of variability in the interpretation of coronary angiograms on the appropriateness of use of coronary revascularization procedures. Leape LL; Park RE; Bashore TM; Harrison JK; Davidson CJ; Brook RH Am Heart J; 2000 Jan; 139(1 Pt 1):106-13. PubMed ID: 10618570 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Quantitative analysis of the coronary angiograms. Tung FY; Lin SL; Chang MS; Kong CW; Chiang BN; Wang SP Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei); 1992 Jan; 49(1):6-11. PubMed ID: 1312387 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Angiographic predictors of new coronary occlusions. Pétursson MK; Jónmundsson EH; Brekkan A; Hardarson T Am Heart J; 1995 Mar; 129(3):515-20. PubMed ID: 7872182 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Automated quantitative coronary arteriography: morphologic and physiologic validation in vivo of a rapid digital angiographic method. Mancini GB; Simon SB; McGillem MJ; LeFree MT; Friedman HZ; Vogel RA Circulation; 1987 Feb; 75(2):452-60. PubMed ID: 3802448 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. How good are experienced interventional cardiologists at predicting the functional significance of intermediate or equivocal left main coronary artery stenoses? Lindstaedt M; Spiecker M; Perings C; Lawo T; Yazar A; Holland-Letz T; Muegge A; Bojara W; Germing A Int J Cardiol; 2007 Aug; 120(2):254-61. PubMed ID: 17346818 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]