ライフサイエンスコーパス: destination therapy

1 f pump support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy).

2 eutic intention (bridge to transplant versus destination therapy).

3 ed goal of use (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy).

4 oal of support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy).

5 ts who are not deemed transplant candidates (destination therapy).

6 52% had ischemic cardiomyopathy and 54% were destination therapy.

7 er LVAD and is associated with older age and destination therapy.

8 as a bridge to cardiac transplantation or as destination therapy.

9 t transplantation, previously referred to as destination therapy.

10 ates in patients receiving these devices for destination therapy.

11 have been used and allow the possibility of destination therapy.

12 te II implantation, with 62% LVADs placed as destination therapy.

13 43% versus 32% of patients had VADs as a destination therapy.

14 bridge to transplant, bridge to recovery or destination therapy.

15 re impairment) seen in patients implanted as destination therapy.

16 nclude use of high-risk transplant lists and destination therapy.

17 e to transplantation, also called chronic or destination therapy.

18 idge to transplantation, may also be used as destination therapy.

19 n in the patients who received the device as destination therapy.

20 ts to provide support until transplant or as destination therapy.

21 ed for the patients who received the pump as destination therapy.

22 respectively, and 61.1% received implants as destination therapy.

23 st be addressed before TAHs can be used as a destination therapy.

24 sed as a bridge to heart transplantation and destination therapy.

25 se as a bridge to lung transplantation or as destination therapy.

26 s are now being used as a permanent form of "destination" therapy.

27 p = 0.001), had MCS more often implanted as destination therapy (33% vs. 14% vs. 22%, p = 0.03), req

28 port were bridge to transplantation (54%) or destination therapy (46%).

29 t devices are also being expanded to include destination therapy and alternatives to cardiac transpla

30 ics encouraged inclusion of all indications (destination therapy and bridge to transplant) and preven

31 end-stage heart disease as either bridge or destination therapy, and have significantly improved the

32 schemic cardiomyopathy, LVAD implantation as destination therapy, and increased baseline body mass in

33 rdiotomy shock, "bridge to transplant," and "destination therapy." At present, device development, cl

34 ional capacity, even among those intended as destination therapy because of ineligibility for transpl

35 , and clinical subgroups of device strategy (destination therapy, bridge to transplant, and bridge to

36 IIB/IV patients meeting indications for LVAD destination therapy but not dependent on intravenous ino

37 ridge to transplantation (BTT) (n = 281) and destination therapy (DT) (n = 374) trials were analyzed.

38 f left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination therapy (DT) can provide survival superior t

39 mortality in bridge to transplant (BTT) and destination therapy (DT) LVAD patients, separately.

40 S) candidates, no matter whether MCS will be destination therapy (DT) or a bridge to heart transplant

41 The HeartMate II (HMII) destination therapy (DT) trial demonstrated significant

42 A post-approval (PA) study for destination therapy (DT) was required by the Food and Dr

43 ation of a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT).

44 spital mortality with pulsatile flow LVAD as destination therapy (DT).

45 with MCSs for bridge to transplant (BTT) and destination therapy (DT).

46 ability of left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT-LVAD) to prolong survival for ma

47 dian age: 62 years, 80% male, 65% White, 61% destination therapy due to transplant ineligibility) was

48 ved 145 devices as a bridge to transplant or destination therapy for advanced heart failure.

49 but currently have too many limitations for destination therapy for children.

50 n has led to their evaluation as a long-term destination therapy for end-stage heart disease.

51 state of knowledge and future directions of Destination Therapy for end-stage heart failure.

52 ss associated with continuous-flow LVADs for destination therapy has improved significantly relative

53 splantation and, more recently, as a form of destination therapy has provided a great opportunity to

54 orporation, Pleasanton, California) LVAD for destination therapy has provided an attractive option fo

55 ernative to heart transplantation, so-called Destination Therapy, has become a promising new option f

56 ence interval 1.46-3.44; P(trend)<0.001) and destination therapy (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence

57 left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for destination therapy in advanced heart failure and progre

58 are expected to explore compassionate use as destination therapy in carefully selected adult patients

59 pproved for use as a bridge-to-transplant or destination therapy in patients who have irreversible en

60 tance devices are now used increasingly as a destination therapy in patients with advanced heart fail

61 rm support, as a bridge to transplant, or as destination therapy in patients with end-stage systolic

62 , both as a bridge to transplantation and as destination therapy in those who are ineligible for card

63 4 patients (all men; mean age 62.8 years) as destination therapy (in the United Kingdom).

64 tation, even though most were implanted with destination therapy intent.

65 research on TAHs, a TAH that is suitable for destination therapy is not yet available.

66 entification of a dedicated caregiver before destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT L

67 Family caregivers of patients with a destination therapy left ventricular assist device play

68 Destination therapy left ventricular assist devices (DT

69 ge to transplantation and more recently as a destination therapy, left ventricular assist device supp

70 Patients who instead received destination therapy-LVAD are estimated to live 4.4 years

71 Destination therapy-LVAD significantly improves life exp

72 s or improved quality of life are needed for destination therapy-LVAD to be cost effective.

73 ejection fraction was 18.1%, and 66.7% were destination therapy LVADs.

74 predominantly male (n = 19,119, 78%) and on destination therapy (n = 12,425, 51%).

75 HMII bridge to transplantation (n = 405) and destination therapy (n = 551) clinical trials were retro

76 It has already been approved for destination therapy of heart failure, and greater portab

77 T), left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination therapy or bridge to transplant.

78 ntinuous-flow LVADs as bridge to transplant, destination therapy, or bridge to decision from January

79 e, either as a bridge to transplantation, as destination therapy, or in some patients, as a bridge to

80 nificantly more likely to receive an LVAD as destination therapy, P<0.001.

81 is study sought to assess the utility of the Destination Therapy Risk Score (DTRS) in patients with c

82 ival Score, Seattle Heart Failure Model, and Destination Therapy Risk Score may provide guidance for

83 rability and complications, the potential of Destination Therapy should continue to expand through th

84 arallel to serve as bridge-to-transplant and destination therapy solutions.

85 537 LVAD recipients (mean 57+/-13 years, 49% destination therapy, support 18.9 months) prevalence of

86 ailure and the expanded indication use (i.e. destination therapy), the overall number of implanted pa

87 In a recent destination therapy trial, survival in LVAD patients was

88 into the HMII bridge to transplantation and destination therapy trials (N = 1,122) were randomly div

89 t of either the bridge to transplantation or destination therapy trials at a community hospital.

90 effectiveness of continuous-flow devices for destination therapy versus optimal medical management in

91 oncerning survival and quality of life since destination therapy was first introduced 10 years ago.

92 e to transplant, bridge to recovery, or even destination therapy will become increasingly important.

93 ear survival rate for patients supported for destination therapy with a continuous-flow LVAD is 74%,

94 Destination therapy with a left ventricular assist devic