ライフサイエンスコーパス: LVEF

1 LVEF <25% at baseline (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.92) a

2 LVEF and HF classification based on LVEF did not predict

3 LVEF and ISZ were assessed 4 months post-MI.

4 LVEF declines and recovery were associated primarily wit

5 LVEF recovered (>=50%) in 45% and improved to >35% in 73

6 LVEF remained >=50% in the majority of patients with HFp

7 LVEF was not different between groups before treatment (

8 dex 1.5 L/min per m(2)vs 2.2 L/min per m(2), LVEF 17% vs 27%), more severe haemodynamic impairment (i

9 identified age/sex-matched patients within 3 LVEF categories: HFrEF (LVEF <40%), HFmrEF (LVEF 40% to

10 following factors were associated with >=5% LVEF increase: shorter HF duration (odds ratio [OR], 1.2

11 sion, 50.9% of the cohort participants had a LVEF >= 40%, of whom 1203 (55.4%) were on BB whilst 905

12 tal and 1-month mortality in patients with a LVEF >= 40% but had a neutral effect on longer-term outc

13 In the intention-to-treat analysis, absolute LVEF improved by 18 +/- 13% in the CA group compared wit

14 t predicted greater improvements in absolute LVEF (10.7%; p = 0.0069) and normalization at 6 months (

15 An LVEF pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic analysis of the

16 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and an LVEF >/=40% at increased risk of SCD and low risk of non

17 referrals with dilated cardiomyopathy and an LVEF >/=40% to our center between January 2000 and Decem

18 ate that 70% to 80% of such patients have an LVEF >35%.

19 The likelihood of having an LVEF >50% on follow-up increased by 24% for each point i

20 Patients with an LVEF >35% also have low competing risks of death from no

21 09 mL [95% CI -11.27 to -2.91; P=0.0009) and LVEF remained preserved or increased (mean duration of f

22 09 mL [95% CI -11.27 to -2.91; p=0.0009) and LVEF remained preserved or increased (mean duration of f

23 m increase [95% CI, 0.30-0.90], P=0.01), and LVEF (odds ratio, per 1% increase, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.02-1.

24 cardia (HR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.05 to 5.43), and LVEF <25% at baseline (HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.12 to 3.95) i

25 th persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF <=35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation

26 Considering patients with diabetes and LVEF >=35% (n = 237), GLS and LA reservoir strain below

27 None of the patients with NFM and LVEF >/=55% at discharge had a significant decrease in L

28 with the need for a permanent pacemaker and LVEF >35% with late gadolinium enhancement >5.7%, had hi

29 l strain, global circumferential strain, and LVEF as well as for infarct size and microvascular obstr

30 recommendations, LVEF >35% with syncope and LVEF >35% with inducible ventricular arrhythmia, resulte

31 in on admission, symptom-to-balloon-time and LVEF were predictors of 1-year HHF.

32 ed left ventricular end diastolic volume and LVEF.

33 LV full recovery was defined as LVEF >=55%.

34 t cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess LVEF and late gadolinium enhancement, indicative of vent

35 or moderate/severe (>=20% and <35%) baseline LVEF had a significantly lower number of composite end p

36 scatheter aortic valve replacement, baseline LVEF was an independent predictor of 2-year cardiovascul

37 o significant relationship was found between LVEF dynamics in the immediate preceding period and mort

38 We sought to study the relationship between LVEF, New York Heart Association class on presentation,

39 Testing for CAD differed by LVEF: 53% in HF with reduced EF (LVEF <=40%), 42% in HF

40 Several studies stratified results by LVEF and found that patients with LVEF >35% but <=52% we

41 Stratified by LVEF <40% alone, the incidence of OHCA was 0.20% and 0.7

42 In the entire group, CMR-LVEF (but not echocardiography-LVEF) independently predi

43 Compared with echocardiography-LVEF, CMR-LVEF significantly improved MACE prediction in the group

44 the MACE rate was also low in those with CMR-LVEF>=40% (24/278, 9%) but significantly increased in pa

45 ficantly increased only in patients with CMR-LVEF<40% (>=50%: 7%, 40%-49%: 9%, <40%: 27%, P<0.001).

46 significantly increased in patients with CMR-LVEF<40% (55/212, 26%; P<0.001).

47 e addition of GLS to a risk model comprising LVEF, infarct size, and microvascular obstruction led to

48 redicts the likelihood of having a decreased LVEF during follow-up, whereas a normal GLS predicts the

49 ossibly related to mavacamten were decreased LVEF at higher plasma concentrations and atrial fibrilla

50 Need for implantable defibrillator (LVEF <=30%) was reduced in the high MI/PCI group (5% vs.

51 nge, 2-4) days after infarction to determine LVEF, global longitudinal strain (GLS), global radial st

52 ex-matched patients with HF within different LVEF groups.

53 These patients comprised the improved donor LVEF group.

54 cores, 461 transplants in the improved-donor LVEF group were matched to 461 transplants in the normal

55 tched to 461 transplants in the normal-donor LVEF group.

56 Dynamic LVEF changes were not associated with mortality.

57 gnostic power of CMR beyond echocardiography-LVEF was assessed using adjusted C statistic, net reclas

58 Most patients displayed echocardiography-LVEF>=50% (629, 56%), and they had a low MACE rate (57/6

59 re group, CMR-LVEF (but not echocardiography-LVEF) independently predicted MACE occurrence.

60 0.10) but not in those with echocardiography-LVEF>=50% (C statistic 0.66 versus 0.66; net reclassific

61 the group of patients with echocardiography-LVEF<50% (C statistic, 0.80 versus 0.72; net reclassific

62 In patients with echocardiography-LVEF<50% (n=490, 44%), the MACE rate was also low in tho

63 al infarction patients with echocardiography-LVEF<50% can provide insights into patient care.

64 Compared with echocardiography-LVEF, CMR-LVEF significantly improved MACE prediction in

65 (LVEF <=40%), 42% in HF with borderline EF (LVEF, 41%-49%), and 31% in HF with preserved EF (LVEF >=

66 , 41%-49%), and 31% in HF with preserved EF (LVEF >=50%).

67 differed by LVEF: 53% in HF with reduced EF (LVEF <=40%), 42% in HF with borderline EF (LVEF, 41%-49%

68 n (EF), improvements in left ventricular EF (LVEF) are associated with better outcomes and remain an

69 eloped and trained to automatically estimate LVEF on a database of >50 000 echocardiographic studies,

70 Furthermore, predictors for LVEF improvement were examined.

71 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF<=35%), New York Heart Association class II-IV heart

72 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35% with >5.7% late gadolinium enhancement on car

73 s with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >= 40%.

74 rease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >=10%.

75 II/III), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >=55%, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic pepti

76 e with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%.

77 t in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (45.8 increasing to 50.9; P < .031).

78 improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean difference, 6.95% [CI, 3.0% to 10.9%]), 6-mi

79 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) alone has not been proven a reliable predictor of

80 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator thera

81 ons with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure symptoms.

82 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and infarct size (ISZ) are key predictors of long-

83 parameters, including LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial end-diastolic volume indexed to bo

84 CMR over left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and myocardial damage remains unclear.

85 ility of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography for a selective use of CMR aft

86 ographic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) change after CRT.

87 sion and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during hospitalization were predictors of in-hospi

88 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) face a high risk for ventricular arrhythmias.

89 c, whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) had improved from less than 40% to 50% or greater,

90 tion and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement following ablation for atrial fibrilla

91 ories of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved EF (

92 when the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is 40% or less and is accompanied by progressive l

93 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is an independent predictor of adverse outcomes af

94 LV ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 50% (P < .001) and anterior infarction (

95 reserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) may have poorer prognosis than normal-flow (NF) AS

96 ents and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reductions.

97 e of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to accurately phenotype patients with heart failur

98 d normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were randomized (1:1) to receive or not receive AC

99 anges in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and clinical laboratory parameters in all treated

100 adients, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and numerical rating scale dyspnea score.

101 age and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and then reviewed the donor charts of unused hear

102 highest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and were predominantly male with the lowest rate

103 improves left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), exercise tolerance, and quality of life among pat

104 ensions, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure functional classification, quality

105 ymptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end-systolic diameter-index (LVESDi), DBP, and

106 ollected left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), prior HF history, and in-hospital CAD testing fro

107 ea change (RV-FAC) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF), respectively.

108 ed using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), this categorization is insufficient for prognosis

109 overy of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), versus 5 sham controls.

110 umes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

111 ement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

112 ass, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

113 based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

114 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

115 Analyses included LV ejection fraction (LVEF); global longitudinal strain (GLS) and circumferent

116 pe (left ventricular [LV] ejection fraction [LVEF] >= or < 50%) independent of LV structure and funct

117 th LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=40%) on initial TTE that resolved (LVEF >/=50%)

118 yopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=45%).

119 less or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% or less) and severe haemodynamic compromise (i

120 n = 525; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] of 33 +/- 9%; 66 +/- 12 years of age; 77% males) u

121 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]).

122 ; median left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 52.5%) and patients with no device (1.3 mL/min/g;

123 baseline left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 61%; global longitudinal strain, -21.5%), cardiac

124 ic resonance imaging, and systolic function (LVEF) at 6 months were compared.

125 LVEF categories: HFrEF (LVEF <40%), HFmrEF (LVEF 40% to 50%), and HFpEF (LVEF >50%).

126 <40%), HFmrEF (LVEF 40% to 50%), and HFpEF (LVEF >50%).

127 ed patients within 3 LVEF categories: HFrEF (LVEF <40%), HFmrEF (LVEF 40% to 50%), and HFpEF (LVEF >5

128 ng all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, LVEF, 6-minute walk test distance, Vo2max, and quality o

129 with a high risk for AD or RCA regardless if LVEF is <=35% or >35%.

130 et atrial fibrillation/flutter, and impaired LVEF [reference >=50%] categorized as 40% to 49%, 30% to

131 tients with FM have a more severely impaired LVEF at admission that, despite steep improvement during

132 diac resynchronization therapy implantation, LVEF improvement (>35%) and recovery (>=50%), AF recurre

133 min supplementation for 6 mo did not improve LVEF, quality of life, or exercise capacity, despite inc

134 ransendocardial stem cell injection improved LVEF (n=65, 9.1% increase; 95% confidence interval, 3.7

135 alyses of patients with HFmrEF with improved LVEF and patients with HFmrEF with unchanged LVEF reveal

136 een recipients of donor hearts with improved LVEF and recipients of donor hearts with initially norma

137 ansendocardial stem cell injection improving LVEF (n=46, 7.0% increase; 95% confidence interval, 2.7

138 s (5 [7%] vs 4 [6%]) and mean (SD) change in LVEF (-2.5% [7.8] vs -4.3% [8.5]) were similar.

139 ver the follow-up duration (1-year change in LVEF -3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.4% to -2.8%

140 The primary end point was change in LVEF from baseline to 6 months after initiating CRT.

141 The primary endpoint was change in LVEF on repeat CMR at 6 months.

142 There was no difference in change in LVEF, LV end diastolic and end systolic diameters betwee

143 concentration was correlated with changes in LVEF (r = -0.381 [IQR, -0.448 to -0.310]; P < .001), LVE

144 n these parameters and subsequent changes in LVEF and heart failure symptoms.

145 Similar results for survival and changes in LVEF in FM versus NFM were observed in the subgroup (n=1

146 ine echocardiogram in relation to changes in LVEF on a follow-up echocardiogram.

147 ry analyses, trastuzumab-mediated decline in LVEF was attenuated in bisoprolol-treated patients (-1 +

148 b resulted in modest, persistent declines in LVEF at 3 years.

149 d against cancer therapy-related declines in LVEF; however, trastuzumab-mediated left ventricular rem

150 67 (P<0.001) as a predictor of a decrease in LVEF >5% during follow-up.

151 % at discharge had a significant decrease in LVEF at follow-up.

152 x, there was a sustained, modest decrease in LVEF over the follow-up duration (1-year change in LVEF

153 r mortality (adjusted HR per 10% decrease in LVEF, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.27; P=0.0006) and all-cause m

154 2 to -13); 19% of patients had a decrease in LVEF, 31% had no change, 49% had a >=5% increase, and 34

155 Decreases in LVEF from a baseline of >= 10 percentage points to an ab

156 een exposure to osimertinib and decreases in LVEF from baseline.

157 athy, CRT was associated with improvement in LVEF after 6 months.

158 gressed at follow-up, with an improvement in LVEF and FDG-avid thoracic disease.

159 Despite greater improvement in LVEF during hospitalization in FM versus NFM forms (medi

160 er implant demonstrated clear improvement in LVEF with BiVP or HisBP versus RVP.

161 associated with a significant improvement in LVEF, independent from the severity of left ventricular

162 However, most patients had improvement in LVEF, obviating the need for primary prevention implanta

163 chronic HF with reduced EF, improvements in LVEF were common.

164 study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year.

165 ts on mavacamten had reversible reduction in LVEF <=45%.

166 y within 6 months, defined by a reduction in LVEF of more than 10% and to less than 50%, an increase

167 ulation using clinical parameters, including LVEF, to guide dosing.

168 nced by improved cardiac function (increased LVEF and +/-Dp/dt), decreased infarct size, and decrease

169 ne learning algorithm for volume-independent LVEF estimation is highly feasible and similar in accura

170 0% (one of 50, 2%); (c) anterior infarction, LVEF 50% or greater (two of 92, 2%); and (d) anterior in

171 two of 92, 2%); and (d) anterior infarction, LVEF less than 50% (23 of 115, 20%) (P < .001 for the tr

172 was as follows: (a) nonanterior infarction, LVEF 50% or greater (one of 135, 1%); (b) nonanterior in

173 one of 135, 1%); (b) nonanterior infarction, LVEF less than 50% (one of 50, 2%); (c) anterior infarct

174 iteria were patients having a previous known LVEF <50%, patients undergoing only 1 echocardiogram stu

175 patients with normal LVEF, patients with low LVEF had higher crude rates of 2-year cardiovascular mor

176 llator (OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.34-1.55]), lower LVEF (OR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.10-1.19]), nonischemic cardiom

177 multivariate analysis, cocaine use, a lower LVEF, a higher NYHA class, a higher viral load (VL), and

178 seline was an independent indicator of lower LVEF at follow-up (coefficient [SE], -0.16 [0.07]; P = .

179 compared with donor hearts with normal LVEF (LVEF >/=55%) on the initial TTE for recipient mortality,

180 se were independent predictors of maintained LVEF on multivariable analysis.

181 (HR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.57]; P<0.001; mean LVEF change 12.5+/-11.8% versus 7.3+/-8.1%; P=0.001).

182 ean age, 65.1 years; 226 women [28.5%]; mean LVEF = 28.2%), 654 (82.4%) completed the study.

183 0.53]; P<0.001) and experienced greater mean LVEF improvement (11.1+/-11.7% versus 4.8+/-9.7%; P<0.00

184 tatistically significant improvement in mean LVEF at 6 months from 28% to 39% (difference, 10.6% [95%

185 0.93 [95% CI, 0.67-1.29]; difference in mean LVEF change: -0.2% [95% CI, -2.7% to 3.0%]).

186 1.32 [95% CI, 0.93-1.62]; difference in mean LVEF change: 0.8% [95% CI, -2.1% to 3.7%]).

187 Median LVEF was 30% (23-35), and median change on follow-up was

188 opathy with left bundle branch block, median LVEF of 29%, and a mean QRS duration of 152 ms.

189 atients with no device (1.3 mL/min/g; median LVEF, 64.0%).

190 ents (145 women, median age 50 years, median LVEF 50%, 25.3% with LGE) followed for a median of 4.6 y

191 ents (mean +/- SD age: 64 +/- 12 y; 83% men; LVEF: 37% +/- 11%) were randomly assigned: 34 received p

192 identify novel biomarkers predicting post-MI LVEF and ISZ, we performed metabolic profiling in the GI

193 triglyceride concentrations predict post-MI LVEF and ISZ.

194 jection fraction (HFrEF), HF with a midrange LVEF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (

195 low-up; 9.5% evolved toward HF with midrange LVEF, and only 1.6% dropped to HF with reduced LVEF.

196 At 6 mo, LVEF was significantly higher in the placebo group than

197 At 12 months, LVEF increased from 28.2% to 37.8% (difference, 9.4% [95

198 .05) between patients with AF with a normal LVEF (24.5% +/- 2.8; n = 107), patients with AF with LVS

199 participants without HF symptoms and normal LVEF as controls.

200 pients of donor hearts with initially normal LVEF.

201 ustment, patients with reduced versus normal LVEF had significantly higher adjusted risk of cardiovas

202 were compared with donor hearts with normal LVEF (LVEF >/=55%) on the initial TTE for recipient mort

203 Compared with patients with normal LVEF, patients with low LVEF had higher crude rates of 2

204 cardiomyopathy, and 30 patients with normal LVEF.

205 n the MRC group (p < 0.0001) and normalized (LVEF >/=50%) in 58% versus 9% (p = 0.0002).

206 rdiac monitoring, including an assessment of LVEF at baseline and during osimertinib treatment, is ad

207 combination with the clinical assessment of LVEF to more accurately identify clinical phenotypes of

208 Assessments of LVEF are recorded when performed for routine care.

209 However, because of LVEF decreases that were observed in patients with cardi

210 In humans, changes of LVEF paralleled these results, with transendocardial ste

211 f squares curves showed a smooth decrease of LVEF during the 11-year follow-up that was statistically

212 s finding was independent from the degree of LVEF dysfunction and was observed in patients with LVEF<

213 Automated estimation of LVEF was feasible in all 99 patients.

214 HFpEF patients and the prognostic impact of LVEF dynamic changes over time.

215 reduction in infarct size and improvement of LVEF in all animal models.

216 reduction in infarct size and improvement of LVEF, which has important implications for the design of

217 edicted all-cause mortality independently of LVEF.

218 ivity that persists despite normalization of LVEF.

219 Predictors of LVEF improvement included presence of AF during echocard

220 we assessed the incidence and predictors of LVEF improvement, safety, and outcomes in patients with

221 egression analysis to identify predictors of LVEF improvement/recovery was performed.

222 patients with HF were similar, regardless of LVEF or renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitor use.

223 nts hospitalized for COVID-19, regardless of LVEF.

224 ntal prognostic value over and above that of LVEF.

225 LVEF and HF classification based on LVEF did not predict outcome.

226 onstrate the prognostic value of LV GLS over LVEF in patients with secondary MR.

227 During the subacute period, LVEF returned to normal (median from 54% to 64%; p < 0.0

228 otein (HDL) triglycerides (HDL-TG) predicted LVEF (beta=1.90 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82 to 2

229 (aortic valve area < 1 cm(2)) and preserved LVEF (>50%) were studied.

230 Among patients with MF and preserved LVEF (42 [55%]), those randomized (21 patients in each a

231 In patients with AM and preserved LVEF, LGE in the midwall layer of the AS myocardial segm

232 n age 35 +/- 15 years) with AM and preserved LVEF.

233 y end points were incident HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF) and incident HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF).

234 After 12 weeks of PVCs, LVEF (p = 0.006) and dP/dT (p = 0.007) decreased.

235 Excluding 2 class IIa recommendations, LVEF >35% with syncope and LVEF >35% with inducible vent

236 atients meeting 2 class IIa recommendations, LVEF >35% with the need for a permanent pacemaker and LV

237 In patients with a recovered LVEF, an abnormal GLS predicts the likelihood of having

238 s and indicated that patients with recovered LVEF are more similar to patients with HFpEF than to pat

239 Patients with recovered LVEF had a wide range of GLS.

240 tively identified 96 patients with a reduced LVEF <50% (screening echocardiogram), whose LVEF had inc

241 ible ambulatory patients with HF and reduced LVEF were recruited from 4 academic and community hospit

242 In ambulatory patients with HF and reduced LVEF, thiamin supplementation for 6 mo did not improve L

243 y of life among patients with HF and reduced LVEF.

244 Of 2991 patients, 839 (28%) had reduced LVEF.

245 stratified according to presence of reduced LVEF (<50%) at baseline, and 2-year risk of cardiovascul

246 tween CCC groups with a preserved or reduced LVEF.

247 ed LVEF (HFpEF) and incident HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF).

248 EF, and only 1.6% dropped to HF with reduced LVEF.

249 1.6% of patients evolved to HF with reduced LVEF.

250 [LVEF] </=40%) on initial TTE that resolved (LVEF >/=50%) during donor management on a subsequent TTE

251 Resting LVEF was also reduced (mean change, -15% [CI, -23% to -6

252 Hg]; P = 0.020), and mean change in resting LVEF was -6% (CI, -10% to -1%).

253 nfirmed by a cardiologist, and a significant LVEF drop, or death of definite or probable cardiac caus

254 ere associated with an increased significant LVEF drop risk (univariate analysis: hazard ratio, 4.52;

255 eline were seen in patients with significant LVEF drop.

256 cy of 0.65 (P=0.002) for predicting a stable LVEF (-5% to 5%) on follow-up.

257 normal GLS predicts the likelihood of stable LVEF during recovery.

258 ly associated with concurrent and subsequent LVEF declines and recovery across therapies.

259 gnificant asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic LVEF drop.

260 orbidities, and surgical triggers (symptoms, LVEF, and LVESDi), baseline DBP (adjusted-hazard ratio [

261 and was significantly better (P=0.005) than LVEF (area under the curve, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.59-0.68]).

262 redicted OHCA and non-OHCA death better than LVEF alone.

263 essure, and RV function would be better than LVEF in predicting all-cause mortality of hospitalized p

264 tive as and significantly more specific than LVEF >35% with any late gadolinium enhancement.

265 Among patients with LVEF >35%, the LVEF remained preserved or increased with either BiVP or

266 LS on the baseline study correlated with the LVEF at the time of follow-up (r=0.33; P<0.001).

267 patients experienced an improvement in their LVEF to >35% at the end of the study (odds ratio, 2.17;

268 otal of 5 clinical parameters in addition to LVEF predicted OHCA and non-OHCA death better than LVEF

269 value of GLS was superior and incremental to LVEF and CMR markers of infarct severity.

270 LVEF and patients with HFmrEF with unchanged LVEF revealed marked differences between these 2 patient

271 , 2623 patients had a baseline and follow-up LVEF assessment.

272 atients with both baseline and >=1 follow-up LVEF assessments to describe factors associated with LVE

273 After disabling PVC for 4 weeks, LVEF (p = 0.01), dP/dT (p = 0.047), and resting VNA (p =

274 When LVEF was treated as continuous variable, it was associat

275 insufficient for prognosis, especially when LVEF is preserved or there is a concomitant right ventri

276 nterval: 1.038 to 1.722; p = 0.024), whereas LVEF <=30% was not (HR: 1.055; 95% confidence interval:

277 reased risk for all-cause mortality, whereas LVEF was not.

278 While LVEF (P = 0.045) and atrial reservoir strain (P = 0.024)

279 Duchenne or Becker muscular dystrophy whose LVEF was preserved and MF was present as determined on C

280 LVEF <50% (screening echocardiogram), whose LVEF had increased by at least 10% and normalized (>50%)

281 afety, and outcomes in patients with AF with LVEF <=35% without prior implantable cardioverter defibr

282 n patients with LVEF<=35% (P=0.001) and with LVEF>35% (P=0.014).

283 Patient factors associated with LVEF improvement in routine clinical practice have not b

284 essments to describe factors associated with LVEF improvement.

285 sion models to define their association with LVEF decline and recovery.

286 Cardiac marker assessments were coupled with LVEF measurements at different time points for 533 patie

287 f left ventricular systolic dysfunction with LVEF of 40% or less as measured by echocardiography.

288 results by LVEF and found that patients with LVEF >35% but <=52% were more likely to receive benefit

289 Among patients with LVEF >35%, the LVEF remained preserved or increased with

290 ), with most MACE occurring in patients with LVEF >=35%.

291 P<0.001), even in subgroups of patients with LVEF < or >=50% (P=0.011 and P<0.001, respectively) and

292 ; P<0.0001), the proportion of patients with LVEF <55% at last follow-up was higher in FM versus NFM

293 In patients with LVEF <=35%, who are potential implantable cardioverter d

294 testing for CAD were higher in patients with LVEF <=40% though remained low.

295 reported pooled outcomes among patients with LVEF both above and below 35% could not be included in t

296 ysfunction and was observed in patients with LVEF<=35% (P=0.001) and with LVEF>35% (P=0.014).

297 This was true for patients with LVEF<=35% (P=0.009) or >35% (P<0.001).

298 6 months were associated with 1- and 2-year LVEF changes.

299 At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI,

300 s mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent