戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 the stroke (age, 69+/-8.4 years; 98% with an implantable defibrillator).
2 I studies, 31 had a pacemaker, and 24 had an implantable defibrillator.
3 July 2005, using the Medical Subject Heading implantable defibrillator.
4 or sudden death and are best treated with an implantable defibrillator.
5 eath, and they are sometimes treated with an implantable defibrillator.
6 nd a negative electrophysiology test with an implantable defibrillator.
7 ectrophysiology test who are treated with an implantable defibrillator.
8 on who were not candidates for or refused an implantable defibrillator.
9 ac arrest and appropriate discharges from an implantable defibrillator.
10        Thirteen (68%) patients have received implantable defibrillators.
11  for primary prevention of sudden death with implantable defibrillators.
12 ng 2 interventional studies in patients with implantable defibrillators.
13 le in all patients except those treated with implantable defibrillators.
14 cible tachycardia, except those treated with implantable defibrillators.
15 ardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, and implantable defibrillators.
16 may include hospice care and inactivation of implantable defibrillators.
17 y, congestive heart failure, and status post implantable defibrillators.
18  arrhythmias with medications and the use of implantable defibrillators.
19 ieve primary prevention of sudden death with implantable defibrillators.
20 ontinued to receive amiodarone; 23 (45%) had implantable defibrillators.
21 incorporated in three commercially available implantable defibrillators.
22  readmission in patients with tiered-therapy implantable defibrillators.
23 ed to be within the range for amiodarone and implantable defibrillators.
24 ndomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive an implantable defibrillator (742 patients) or conventional
25                             All patients had implantable defibrillators and had experienced 6 to 55 V
26 diac reasons is common in patients receiving implantable defibrillators and is responsible for substa
27               Despite the current success of implantable defibrillators and the future promise of gen
28 4.5%) occurred (13 appropriate shocks of the implantable defibrillator, and 1 cardiac arrest).
29  select candidates to receive a prophylactic implantable defibrillator, and its accuracy has never be
30 ded by successes in the realm of pacemakers, implantable defibrillators, and ventricular assist devic
31                                              Implantable defibrillators are also being used for an ex
32 k patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, implantable defibrillators are highly effective in termi
33  trials such as AVID (Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators) are designed to determine th
34  antiarrhythmic therapy, including drugs and implantable defibrillators, as indicated by the results
35 genital heart disease is reviewed, including implantable defibrillators, atrial antitachycardia pacem
36                    The Antiarrhythmic Versus Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) trial recently was conc
37                   The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study compared treatme
38                   The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study demonstrated imp
39  of patients from the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study Registry to dete
40                   The Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial compared antiarr
41     Screening for the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial identified patie
42 ic VT followed in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial through December
43                In the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) trial, patients with a
44 logically guided antiarrhythmic therapy with implantable defibrillators, but not with antiarrhythmic
45 tion therapy (CRT) alone or combined with an implantable defibrillator (CRT-D) has been shown to impr
46  resynchronization therapy (CRT) or CRT + an implantable defibrillator (CRT-D).
47                        (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator [DAVID] Trial II; NCT00187187)
48 (n=20) during shocks applied with the use of implantable defibrillator electrodes during the refracto
49                     Two patients required an implantable defibrillator for ventricular arrhythmias.
50 ained ventricular arrhythmia treated with an implantable defibrillator, freedom from appropriate defi
51                                  Underuse of implantable defibrillators has been previously noted in
52                            Aggressive use of implantable defibrillators has significantly reduced the
53 panding clinical indications, pacemakers and implantable defibrillators have become increasingly impo
54 story and disease course for many, including implantable defibrillators, heart transplant, external d
55 dia, ventricular fibrillation or appropriate implantable defibrillator (ICD) therapy, and the seconda
56                          Among patients with implantable defibrillators (ICD), use of remote patient
57                                 Prophylactic implantable defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in pa
58 hmic treatment strategy, including drugs and implantable defibrillators (ICDs), guided by electrophys
59 the Medical Subject Headings defibrillators, implantable; defibrillators, implantable/adverse effects
60  guide the use of implantable pacemakers and implantable defibrillators in patients who have hypertro
61 did not demonstrate mortality reduction with implantable defibrillators in patients with recent myoca
62 ular ejection fraction was 28%; 53.1% had an implantable defibrillator inserted before randomization
63      There is accumulating evidence that the implantable defibrillator is highly effective in termina
64 ng those athletes who would benefit from the implantable defibrillator is not always clear.
65                                     Need for implantable defibrillator (LVEF <=30%) was reduced in th
66 1), PV (n = 29), or ICED (n = 30) (automatic implantable defibrillator [n = 11] or pacemaker [n = 19]
67                                  Advances in implantable defibrillators now make this therapy feasibl
68 al was designed to evaluate the effect of an implantable defibrillator on survival in such patients.
69 000, through October 31, 2016, for the terms implantable defibrillator OR implantable cardioverter de
70 ation for anticoagulation with heparin after implantable defibrillator or pacemaker implantation were
71 ge, have never been implicated as causing an implantable defibrillator or pacemaker infection.
72 icant ventricular arrhythmia, indication for implantable defibrillator, or new or worsening HF at 6-m
73 face potential mappings were obtained during implantable defibrillator pacing, catheter pacing from 7
74 2 percent fatal adverse effects (potentially implantable defibrillators) saves 1 life for every 14 pa
75 t hospitalization and, when combined with an implantable defibrillator, significantly reduces mortali
76 le Defibrillators Study (AVID), the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), and the Cardiac
77 trials, including the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Study (AVID), the Canadian Im
78 ients enrolled in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators Study were used to create a h
79 dioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is the first implantable defibrillator that avoids placing electrodes
80           Patients at risk currently receive implantable defibrillators that deliver electrical shock
81  the current success of ablative therapy and implantable defibrillators, the need is still pressing f
82 termine patients most likely to benefit from implantable defibrillator therapy are unclear.
83                                              Implantable defibrillator therapy may be of less import
84                Events in a clinical trial of implantable defibrillator therapy were classified using
85 T efficacy testing and lower the barriers to implantable defibrillator therapy?
86                    With the exception of the implantable defibrillator, there are few effective appro
87 , our current clinical practice is to use an implantable defibrillator to treat an initial episode of
88 reatment strategies are available, including implantable defibrillators to prevent sudden death, drug
89 urvival data from the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators trail were used to calculate
90 sease-specific QoL in Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators trial participants.
91              The DAVID (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator) trial demonstrated that dual
92 e outcome in the DAVID (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator) trial.
93 s receiving a Ventak PRx, a third-generation implantable defibrillator with an event recorder.