ライフサイエンスコーパス: ejection fraction

1 ients experienced a DLT (grade 3 decrease in ejection fraction).

2 hophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

3 ody mass index but not with left ventricular ejection fraction.

4 T-wave inversion, left and right ventricular ejection fraction.

5 ery territory, and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction.

6 al HF, HFpEF, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

7 diabetes who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

8 ivabradine in 6505 HF patients with reduced ejection fraction.

9 t in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

10 h in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

11 e in patients with chronic HF with preserved ejection fraction.

12 ting of reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction.

13 nstay therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

14 ession is decreased in patients with reduced ejection fraction.

15 ing the safety in those with HF with reduced ejection fraction.

16 nfarction, heart attack, and reduced cardiac ejection fraction.

17 hysiology of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.

18 7.2% were non-White, and 46.8% had preserved ejection fraction.

19 redict outcomes in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

20 l rationale for its use in HF with preserved ejection fraction.

21 patients (2%) had abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction.

22 ptoms and HRQL in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

23 action (HFpEF) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

24 The rats develop heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

25 ure, especially heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

26 tings were associated with a reduction in LV ejection fraction.

27 left atrium and left ventricle with a normal ejection fraction.

28 heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

29 with preserved ejection fraction or reduced ejection fraction.

30 tor or cardiac resynchronization therapy and ejection fraction.

31 ging covariates, including right ventricular ejection fraction.

32 ut not with mitral regurgitation severity or ejection fraction.

33 yocytes from patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction.

34 focus on subgroups defined by sex, race, and ejection fraction.

35 15-4.13]) and not heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [1.06 (0.63-1.79)].

36 iversity Hospital Jena (17 HF with preserved ejection fraction, 18 HF with reduced ejection fraction,

37 Dysfunction in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), 248 unique circulating proteins were

38 mean age of 57 years, mean left-ventricular ejection fraction, 26%, and 12 (17%) with type 2 diabete

39 e, 27 (age, 62+/-11 years; 22 men; 20 white; ejection fraction, 26+/-8%) had 24-hour urine sodium >=3

40 ion fraction, 34+/-11%) and 59% of women (LV ejection fraction, 28+/-13%).

41 xty patients with HF (age 65.2+/-12.1 years; ejection fraction 30.4+/-6.7%, peakVO(2) 14.2+/-4.0 mL/[

42 diabetes and 23 (21.9%) prediabetes, mean LV ejection fraction 32.5% (9.8%), and 81 (77.1%) New York

43 male, 66+/-9 years old with left ventricular ejection fraction 34+/-6% were included.

44 ction was reported in 40% of men (who had LV ejection fraction, 34+/-11%) and 59% of women (LV ejecti

45 edian [interquartile range] left ventricular ejection fraction 38.7% [37.2-39.0]), 1018 (97%) complet

46 ion and remodeling post-MI (left ventricular ejection fraction, 41+/-11 in MI-vehicle versus 61+/-7 i

47 ents with chronic HFpEF and left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or higher with New York Heart Asso

48 volume (SV), 19 mL (SV/BSA, 12 mL/m(2)); and ejection fraction, 47%.

49 males, age 44 +/- 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 49 +/- 14%) with myocarditis and VA at

50 ion (per 10% decrement from left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%; hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.30

51 e 51 +/- 14 years, 91% men, left ventricular ejection fraction 52% +/- 9%) had history of myocarditis

52 1) and LV sphericity, and improvements in LV ejection fraction (6.0 +/- 4.2 vs. -0.1 +/- 3.9; p < 0.0

53 e 56+/-15 years, 61% women, left ventricular ejection fraction 64+/-8%), higher VE/VCO2(nadir) was as

54 ean ancestry with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a PRP distinguished patients who deri

55 and women and patients with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below the median of 57%.

56 t performance to detect low left ventricular ejection fraction across a range of racial/ethnic subgro

57 spitals with >=11 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction admissions in 2014 and 2015.

58 d not significantly improve left ventricular ejection fraction after 52 weeks.

59 served ejection fraction, or HF with reduced ejection fraction after adjustment for CRF and tradition

60 ed, except for a lower proportion of reduced ejection fraction after MI (7% versus 12%), previous hea

61 ocker withdrawal in patients with normalized ejection fractions after cardiac resynchronization thera

62 ith heart failure who demonstrate normalized ejection fractions after cardiac resynchronization thera

63 spitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and (2) a cohort of 1079 hospitals wit

64 ymptomatic HF with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction and 97 participants without HF symptom

65 of segmenting the left ventricle, estimating ejection fraction and assessing cardiomyopathy.

66 ents with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and elevated natriuretic peptides enro

67 eneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and existing quality metrics to explor

68 d circumferential strains and declines in LV ejection fraction and fractional shortening were observe

69 ificant positive correlation between cardiac ejection fraction and GMD across the whole frontal and p

70 phy compared with those with HF with reduced ejection fraction and HC.

71 isease patients have shown an improvement in ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms.

72 gs in both patients who have HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fractio

73 ed viscoelasticity in both HF with preserved ejection fraction and HF with reduced ejection fraction

74 rm outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and instead was associated with advers

75 Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block may respo

76 cture and markers of heart failure including ejection fraction and NT-proBNP.

77 hospitalization in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and often presents without classical s

78 (including both heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and reduced ejection fraction), as wel

79 oth heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and was replicated in the Washington U

80 served ejection fraction, 18 HF with reduced ejection fraction, and 20 HC).

81 cs such as contractile amplitude, frequency, ejection fraction, and fractional pump flow are sensitiv

82 disease, left atrial size, left ventricular ejection fraction, and year of ablation.

83 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.28), and left ventricular ejection fraction (aOR, 1.07 per 5% increase; 95% CI, 1.

84 T-proBNP to BNP in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction appears to be greater than generally a

85 liably classifies heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (area under the curve of 0.97).

86 istinguished from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction as well as other aetiologies that have

87 with preserved ejection fraction and reduced ejection fraction), as well as echocardiographic indicat

88 primary outcome measure was left ventricular ejection fraction at 52 weeks, assessed by magnetic reso

89 The mean left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline and at 52 weeks was 51.3%

90 There were no differences in RV volumes and ejection fraction between patients with and without RVOT

91 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but additional information is needed

92 comes in advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but its prognostic significance for a

93 Nicotinic Acid 400 mg lowered ejection fraction by 4% (64 +/- 8% to 60 +/- 7%, P = .03

94 LG AS groups with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the HG group.

95 fied as acute decompensated HF had available ejection fraction data (53% female, 68% white, 53% HFrEF

96 Contractile function was similarly impaired (ejection fraction, day 2: 40.9% +/- 9.7% vs. 59.2% +/- 4

97 LG severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased DI<0.25 is a reliable param

98 ing, there was a subsequent left ventricular ejection fraction decrement.

99 n in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction)demonstrating the benefit of dapaglifl

100 heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction deserves future investigation.

101 eart failure with both preserved and reduced ejection fraction display reductions in energetic status

102 measures (LV end-diastolic volume index, LV ejection fraction), diuretic intensification, symptoms (

103 Ejection fraction (EF) and shortening fraction (SF) were

104 urvivors of African ancestry, first based on ejection fraction (EF) as a continuous outcome, followed

105 The preserved LV ejection fraction (EF) group in MIS-C showed diastolic d

106 Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is an indicator of cardiac functi

107 Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) recovery is associated with bette

108 dary mitral regurgitation (MR) when using LV ejection fraction (EF).

109 ith myocarditis, 61 cases (60%) had a normal ejection fraction (EF).

110 stolic volume (EDV: r = 0.97, P < .001), and ejection fraction (EF: r = 0.94, P < .001).

111 p with risk of overall HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF; EF >=50%), HF with reduced EF (EF

112 identified with ES and systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction [EF] <50%), followed for 5.8 +/- 4.7 y

113 ents With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), empagliflozin significantly improved

114 In patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, empagliflozin reduced the risk and to

115 eptides compare in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, especially with contemporary assays.

116 d left ventricular fractional shortening and ejection fraction) even if increased cardiac mass and pr

117 are elevated in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, favorably altered by sacubitril/valsa

118 20 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2 medical centers to elicit their

119 h chronic HF with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction from 34 Dutch outpatient HF clinics we

120 zed patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from a diverse health system to usual

121 ural network to predict low left ventricular ejection fraction from the ECG.

122 x was not different from the SevAS-preserved ejection fraction group (P>0.99).

123 Although lowest in the SevAS-reduced ejection fraction group, CK flux was not different from

124 -wave greater than 8 (for a left ventricular ejection fraction >= 45%) or an E/A ratio less than or e

125 diac magnetic resonance with a decline in LV ejection fraction >=10% and absolute LV ejection fractio

126 in the Americas region) with symptomatic HF, ejection fraction >=45%, and elevated natriuretic peptid

127 )) and LG; and normal-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction >=50% and stroke volume index >=35 mL/

128 -LG); paradoxical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction >=50% but stroke volume index <35 mL/m

129 (ModAS) (n=13), SevAS, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction >=55% (SevAS-preserved ejection fracti

130 with Duchenne muscular dystrophy with an LV ejection fraction >=55% on >=1 cardiac magnetic resonanc

131 ve heart failure or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction had a higher risk of nonarrhythmic dea

132 Left ventricular ejection fraction has conventionally been used as a risk

133 Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction have worse muscle function and predomi

134 tflow tract obstruction at baseline, reduced ejection fraction, HCM patients with a sarcomere mutatio

135 tion in the context of preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction HF.

136 A state of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-rEF) was then produced by altering

137 on fraction (HFrEF) 48.1%; HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) 51.9%] who underwent noncardia

138 common to both heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced

139 ce is common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and is associated with impaire

140 Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at high risk of mortality,

141 inflammation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are of interest due to the obe

142 Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) constitutes half of all HF but

143 shing models that resemble HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) from those with reduced ejecti

144 Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has grown to become the domina

145 tion (HFrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) justify the search for novel t

146 (HF) subtypes: heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or heart failure with reduced

147 ients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) typically develop dyspnea and

148 idrange LVEF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as to identify molecu

149 Background In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), echocardiographic studies sug

150 development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

151 g patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

152 c mechanism for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

153 for HF among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

154 ure/function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

155 ulting in reduced filling but with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

156 trial design in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

157 pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

158 a rat model of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

159 genesis of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

160 duced ejection fraction [HFrEF] vs preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]), and being on guideline-direc

161 e patients with heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF).

162 eighted 296,057 HF patients [HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) 48.1%; HF with preserved eject

163 ion among 3775 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and advanced CKD.

164 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) beyond conventional therapy co

165 Heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) exhibit severe limitations in

166 Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is characterized by blunting o

167 y associated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or heart failure with preserve

168 patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the mechanism by which th

169 signatures for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with a midrange LVEF (HFmr

170 ction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there has been limited attent

171 ise limitation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we investigated the influence

172 ion fraction (HFpEF) from those with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

173 diabetes and with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

174 proximately 50% of cases are HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

175 h in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

176 istry from 2006 to 2018 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF).

177 Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; heart failure with reduced lef

178 action phenotype (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] vs preserved ejection fraction

179 Sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of ejection fraction in heart failure.

180 ricular reverse remodeling (left ventricular ejection fraction increase by >=10% or normalization to

181 Left ventricular ejection fraction increased >=10% in 46.5% of the patien

182 in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, independent of baseline diabetes stat

183 ation, AS-related symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction, indexed left ventricular ventricular

184 , defined as occurring when left ventricular ejection fraction is <50%.

185 observation that heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is associated with elevated circulatin

186 model can rapidly identify subtle changes in ejection fraction, is more reproducible than human evalu

187 with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction <=

188 than or equal to 1.5 (for a left ventricular ejection fraction < 45%).

189 This were consistent for left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% or >= 50%.

190 Ejection fraction < 53% was not associated with exercise

191 2.6 [95% CI, 1.7-3.5]), and left ventricular ejection fraction <35% (HR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.3-2.8]).

192 or myocardial infarction or left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.69-1.35]), A

193 otensin receptor blocker if left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and/or diabetes mellitus (OR, 0.9

194 ients with HFrEF defined by left ventricular ejection fraction <40% prospectively referred for vasodi

195 heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction <40%) referred for stress cardiovascul

196 Healthy and HF subjects (ejection fraction <45%, stable conditions) underwent car

197 An ejection fraction <50% was considered HFrEF.

198 ided in classical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) and LG (CLF-LG); paradoxical low

199 To identify an ejection fraction <50%, the area under the receiver oper

200 reserved ejection fraction, n=37), SevAS, LV ejection fraction <55% (SevAS-reduced ejection fraction,

201 Left ventricle ejection fraction <55% was strongly associated with seve

202 ry prevention patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <=35% and no pacing indications were i

203 ardiomyopathy patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <=35% without prior history of VAs und

204 reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction <=35%) and atrial fibrillation over a

205 or the identification of LVSD (defined as LV ejection fraction <=35%) to a cohort of patients aged >=

206 ecent history of NYHA functional class III); ejection fraction <=35%; stable medical management for >

207 class II or greater with a left ventricular ejection fraction <=40% and a modest elevation of NT-pro

208 class II to IV with a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <=40% and type 2 diabetes or prediabet

209 functional class II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <=40%, and elevated natriuretic peptid

210 linical trial enrolling 881 patients with an ejection fraction <=40%.

211 n LV ejection fraction >=10% and absolute LV ejection fraction <=50%.

212 P<0.0001) associated with improvements in LV ejection fraction, LV end-diastolic volume index, and LV

213 n functional class, aortic valve surgery, LV ejection fraction, LV end-systolic dimension and volume

214 ischarge in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >= 40%.

215 n functional class II/III), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >=55%, and N-terminal pro-B-typ

216 nificant improvement in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (45.8 increasing to 50.9; P < .

217 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) alone has not been proven a rel

218 We evaluated the utility of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography for a selec

219 cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) face a high risk for ventricula

220 HFrEF occurs when the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is 40% or less and is accompani

221 tenosis (AS) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) may have poorer prognosis than

222 Age, symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end-systolic diameter-index

223 logy, functional class, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

224 after stratifying based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

225 F) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

226 Analyses included LV ejection fraction (LVEF); global longitudinal strain (GL

227 t HF and HF phenotype (left ventricular [LV] ejection fraction [LVEF] >= or < 50%) independent of LV

228 3 L/min per m(2) or less or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% or less) and severe haemody

229 patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be an important part of shared dec

230 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiov

231 elated plasma proteins with left ventricular ejection fraction measured at 4 months post-MI and ident

232 f these, 96 correlated with left ventricular ejection fraction measured at 4 months post-MI.

233 ulated in human heart failure with preserved ejection fraction myocardium and chronic administration

234 served ejection fraction and HF with reduced ejection fraction myocardium.

235 rence (n=109, 89%), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (n=104, 85%), coronary allograft vascu

236 AS, LV ejection fraction <55% (SevAS-reduced ejection fraction, n=15), healthy volunteers with nonhyp

237 LV) ejection fraction >=55% (SevAS-preserved ejection fraction, n=37), SevAS, LV ejection fraction <5

238 roup analyses revealed that left ventricular ejection fraction, not the extent of left ventricular tr

239 ation (absolute increase in left ventricular ejection fraction, obese +16+/-7% versus control +21+/-4

240 ey injury were preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05];

241 I-IIIC breast cancer, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 55% or more were randomly assigned

242 in(-1).1.73 m(-2), a median left ventricular ejection fraction of 62%, and a median CFR of 1.8.

243 olled 196 patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of at least 40%, impaired peak rate of

244 e status of 0, 1, or 2, and left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 53%.

245 art Association class II, III, or IV) and an ejection fraction of less than 45% to receive vericiguat

246 nts with iron deficiency, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%, and who were stabili

247 r standard chemotherapy because of a cardiac ejection fraction of less than 50%, pulmonary diffusion

248 saturation <20%), and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%.

249 d a cohort with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction only (TOPCAT).

250 dent HF and subcategorized HF with preserved ejection fraction or reduced ejection fraction.

251 ailure of the heart to pump (HF with reduced ejection fraction) or by the failure of the heart to rel

252 with risk of incident HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction, or HF with reduced ejection fraction

253 rs, but significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction (p < 0.001) and lower rates of guideli

254 Improvements in ejection fraction (P = 0.08) and surrogate measures of l

255 for hospital mortality than left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001 by De Long test).

256 ith ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

257 rotic syndrome; heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, particularly if restrictive features

258 rt of patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, patients with lower systolic BP recei

259 CI, 1.04-3.44]; P=0.04) and left ventricular ejection fraction (per 10% decrement from left ventricul

260 , 1.19-1.46]; P<0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction (per 10%: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80-0.97]

261 of valvular heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction phenotype (heart failure with reduced

262 ve, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction provide an ideal population to underst

263 The (18)F-FDG signal correlated with ejection fraction (r = -0.75, P = 0.01) and ventricular

264 of 711 people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction recruited from 4 specialist HF clinics

265 in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction remain lower than guideline recommende

266 osis (AS) despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction remains challenging.

267 creased pyruvate dehydrogenase flux and poor ejection fraction reserve.

268 Heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (respectively, HFrEF and HFpEF) is the

269 Left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction, risk area (before treatment), myocard

270 rse aortic constriction/MI (left ventricular ejection fraction+/-SD, 36+/-8 in vehicle versus 45+/-11

271 HF with reduced ejection fraction severity associates with distinct prot

272 were consistent across subgroups defined by ejection fraction, sex, race, cause of cardiomyopathy, p

273 disc and modestly decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, suggesting ZO-1 is differentially req

274 pe 2 diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction taking regular loop diuretic who were

275 e no significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction, the diastolic function and longitudin

276 atients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to receive sacubitril/valsartan (n=241

277 ative benefits of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treatment will be largely unrealized.

278 hite patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, treatment with S/V was associated wit

279 Participants With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial on the sGC stimulator vericigua

280 tions for Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial randomized patients with heart

281 Age, sex, body mass index, left ventricular ejection fraction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, history of

282 measures used in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (VE/VCO2(overall-slope)).

283 Left ventricular ejection fraction was <30% in one-third; 80% required in

284 Ejection fraction was <52% in 11.7% of male participants

285 mporary mechanical support, left ventricular ejection fraction was 14.5+/-5.3%, end-diastolic diamete

286 years, 86% were men, median left ventricular ejection fraction was 20%, 81% had ischemic cardiomyopat

287 heart failure, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26.4+/-5.8%.

288 were Black, 7% were Hispanic, and the median ejection fraction was 32%.

289 rast, the risk of incident HF with preserved ejection fraction was 40% lower in the moderate fit grou

290 ess was 22.9 +/- 8.7 mm and left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.4 +/- 6.6%.

291 ckness was 18 +/- 8 mm, and left ventricular ejection fraction was 61 +/- 12%.

292 diameter, systolic BP, and left ventricular ejection fraction was fairly predictive of unassisted ma

293 with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were excluded.

294 to 70 years, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were recruited from outpatient heart f

295 rtic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent AVR.

296 ice similarity coefficient of 0.92, predicts ejection fraction with a mean absolute error of 4.1% and

297 ed outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction with or without T2DM.

298 uced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction with T2DM to assess their efficacy, sa

299 l benefit, in particular, in HF with reduced ejection fraction, with theoretical rationale for its us

300 ent in people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, yet is often not primarily due to dec