ライフサイエンスコーパス: transmitral

1 , the difference between atrial reversal and transmitral A wave duration was increased in the mutant

2 interaction P <.001) and larger increases in transmitral A wave velocity (mean difference, 5.08 cm/s

3 Transmitral A wave velocity increased, but the E/A ratio

4 diameter; and rs12440869 in IQCH for Doppler transmitral A-wave peak velocity.

5 Standard pulsed-wave Doppler transmitral and pulmonary vein flow indices were also re

6 Transmitral and pulmonary vein flow velocities were meas

7 A combination of transmitral and pulmonary venous flow parameters can pro

8 Pulsed wave Doppler transmitral and pulmonary venous flow velocity curves an

9 Transmitral and pulmonary venous flow were recorded by p

10 LVFP and several parameters derived from the transmitral and pulmonary venous velocity and left atria

11 rea) and LA four-chamber dimensions, Doppler transmitral and PV flow velocities and velocity-time int

12 ble-adjusted correlates of the change in the transmitral and tissue Doppler imaging diastolic indexes

13 Diastolic function was assessed by transmitral and tissue Doppler.

14 open-irrigated radiofrequency catheter, via transmitral approach.

15 elocities of early diastolic or atrial phase transmitral blood flow.

16 easurements were obtained synchronously with transmitral CMM digital recordings.

17 ly encountered pitfalls in the assessment of transmitral conduction block using differential coronary

18 ransmitral diastolic flow velocity (E), late transmitral diastolic flow velocity (A), and early diast

19 Peak early transmitral diastolic flow velocity (E), late transmitra

20 Atrial function (echocardiograph-determined transmitral diastolic flow, left atrial appendage emptyi

21 r detection of right to left bubble passage, transmitral Doppler (TMD), against two-dimensional (2D)

22 ion as demonstrated by significantly reduced transmitral Doppler echocardiographic E/A wave ratio.

23 icular diastolic function was measured using transmitral Doppler filling velocities and myocardial ti

24 ty of the combined information obtained from transmitral Doppler flow and color M-mode Doppler flow p

25 s observed between groups; however, standard transmitral Doppler flow DF indexes of the CR group were

26 Transmitral Doppler flow patterns were recorded at each

27 estimate of pw than standard measurements of transmitral Doppler flow.

28 Conventional transmitral Doppler indices are unreliable in assessing

29 Transmitral Doppler is a sensitive and specific method f

30 stricted LV diastolic filling as assessed by transmitral Doppler recordings.

31 We measured peak early (E) and late (A) transmitral Doppler velocities, E/A ratio and flow propa

32 sing left ventricular filling pressures with transmitral Doppler velocity curves.

33 rial volume index (LAVI), and ratio of early transmitral Doppler velocity/early diastolic annular vel

34 ically decreases in midsystole, despite peak transmitral driving pressure, suggesting a change in the

35 The ratio of transmitral E velocity to Ea can be used to estimate PCW

36 corrects the influence of relaxation on the transmitral E velocity.

37 LV filling time, transmitral E/A ratio, and myocardial performance index

38 Transmitral E/septal Ea ratio predicts children with HCM

39 raphy at rest and stress; RFP was defined as transmitral E:A ratio > or =1.0, isovolumic relaxation t

40 Transmitral early (E) and late (A) Doppler flow velociti

41 Prolongation of transmitral early diastolic filling wave deceleration ti

42 d significantly impaired diastolic function (transmitral early diastolic peak velocity/early diastoli

43 es of left ventricular (LV) filling pressure-transmitral early diastolic velocity/tissue Doppler mitr

44 ular segments) and the ratio of this and the transmitral early filling velocity E (E/E').

45 Transmitral early velocity wave recorded using pulsed wa

46 End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, E-wave transmitral/early diastolic mitral annular velocity (E/e

47 etermine Doppler variables of early and late transmitral filling (E and A velocities) and isovolumetr

48 tion (EF), pulsed-wave Doppler (PWD)-derived transmitral filling indices (E- and A-wave velocities, E

49 ventricular dimensions/volumes, restrictive transmitral filling pattern, and lower left ventricular

50 unction was evaluated as peak early and late transmitral filling velocities.

51 0001, where M-AC is the mean acceleration of transmitral flow and P-V is the peak velocity of pulmona

52 Isolated parameters of transmitral flow correlated with M-LVDP only when ejecti

53 trial contraction in the pulmonary veins and transmitral flow duration with atrial contraction correl

54 rdiac "stiffening" characterized by impaired transmitral flow indicative of early diastolic dysfuncti

55 Among transmitral flow parameters, mean acceleration showed th

56 or chamber stiffness, resulting in an early transmitral flow pattern that was flatter and narrower a

57 myocardial stiffness, resulting in an early transmitral flow pattern that was flatter and narrower,

58 Because of the variable nature of the transmitral flow pattern with the assist device, the tim

59 dered when inferring diastolic function from transmitral flow pattern.

60 showed either a restrictive or a monophasic transmitral flow pattern.

61 EOA, transmitral flow rate, mean transmitral gradient, and sy

62 Finally, transmitral flow showed decreased atrial contribution to

63 After device insertion, transmitral flow showed rapid beat to beat variation in

64 With LV assistance, transmitral flow showed rapidly varying patterns beat by

65 ar diastolic velocity ratio: r = 0.51; early transmitral flow to the velocity of early left ventricul

66 2; P < 0.01) and the early to late diastolic transmitral flow velocities ratio (-0.3; 95% CI: -0.6, -

67 Ejection fraction, early and atrial peak transmitral flow velocities, deceleration time of early

68 erformed to measure early and late diastolic transmitral flow velocities.

69 2%) underwent measurement of early diastolic transmitral flow velocity (E) and mitral annular velocit

70 When combined with measurement of the early transmitral flow velocity (E), the resultant ratio (E/e'

71 The pulsed wave Doppler ratio of peak early transmitral flow velocity (E)/peak late (or atrial) flow

72 ines recommend using early to late diastolic transmitral flow velocity (E/A) to assess diastolic func

73 the use of echo-Doppler to characterize the transmitral flow velocity curves in various disease stat

74 It has been hypothesized that transmitral flow velocity curves show a progression over

75 chemia leads to a flatter and narrower early transmitral flow velocity pattern and no change in late

76 Myocardial ischemia changes the transmitral flow velocity pattern due to disease-induced

77 Transmitral flow velocity patterns and their determinant

78 al contraction velocities (measured from the transmitral flow velocity profile) were significantly (p

79 ed both the average ratio of early diastolic transmitral flow velocity to early diastolic mitral annu

80 (PCWP) was estimated from the ratio of early transmitral flow velocity to early mitral annular diasto

81 pressure, relative wall thickness, the early transmitral flow velocity to peak early diastolic mitral

82 y and diastolic dysfunction (early diastolic transmitral flow velocity to peak early-diastolic annula

83 flow velocities, deceleration time of early transmitral flow velocity, myocardial performance index,

84 Conventional transmitral flow was also obtained.

85 Diastolic function was quantified by transmitral flow, Doppler tissue imaging, and model-base

86 tcomings of the proposed approach (including transmitral flow, tissue velocity, maximum left atrial v

87 imated noninvasively using CMM recordings of transmitral flow, which should improve the understanding

88 iac output, LV ejection time, tau, and early transmitral flow.

89 ography, LA pressure-area loops, and Doppler transmitral flow.

90 mates of LV filling pressure with the use of transmitral flows and mitral annular velocities correlat

91 Mitral valve area and transmitral gradient (TMG) were 1.26 +/- 0.19 cm(2) and

92 The mean transmitral gradient at 12 months during peak exercise w

93 he best independent predictor of an elevated transmitral gradient at discharge.

94 A postinterventional transmitral gradient by continuous-wave Doppler of >/=5

95 trivial in all implanted patients, and mean transmitral gradient was 2.3 +/- 1.4 mm Hg.

96 dicted by initial MVA, mitral valve score or transmitral gradient, alone or in combination.

97 EOA, transmitral flow rate, mean transmitral gradient, and systolic pulmonary arterial pr

98 oppler of >/=5 mm Hg best predicted elevated transmitral gradients at discharge.

99 let preservation was associated with similar transmitral gradients at peak exercise at 12 months post

100 In addition, transmitral gradients by continuous-wave Doppler (dPmean

101 Transmitral gradients by continuous-wave Doppler are qui

102 nction by load-dependent pulsed-wave Doppler transmitral indices has been variable.

103 Serial transmitral inflow Doppler variables were recorded after

104 Because transmitral inflow early velocity (E) increases progress

105 .001) and the ratio of pulsed Doppler early transmitral inflow to Doppler tissue imaging annulus vel

106 We analyzed the transmitral inflow velocity profile at the mitral annulu

107 astolic dysfunction was defined as a passive transmitral left ventricular (LV) inflow velocity to tis

108 forward stepwise regression analysis, early transmitral left ventricular filling velocity (E)/septal

109 d that for every 1-U increase in the passive transmitral LV inflow velocity to tissue Doppler imaging

110 demonstrated that an increase in the passive transmitral LV inflow velocity to tissue Doppler imaging

111 The association, if any, between the transmitral mean pressure gradient (TMPG) after mitral t

112 alysis of the early diastolic portion of the transmitral or pulmonary venous flow velocity curves can

113 We studied 61 patients with an E<A transmitral pattern and CTEPH who underwent pulmonary th

114 fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic diameter, and transmitral peak early/late (E/A) flow velocity ratio we

115 rifice area more strongly related to that of transmitral pressure (r2 = 0.638) than to that of mitral

116 Increased transmitral pressure acting to close the leaflets decrea

117 changes in both mitral annular area and the transmitral pressure acting to close the leaflets, which

118 inantly determined by dynamic changes in the transmitral pressure acting to close the valve.

119 r area helps determine the potential for MR, transmitral pressure appears important in driving the le

120 rom the continuous wave Doppler trace of MR, transmitral pressure as 4v(2), and mitral annular area f

121 to create a regurgitant orifice, with rising transmitral pressure counteracting forces that restrict

122 portant regurgitation; conversely, increased transmitral pressure decreased regurgitant orifice area

123 The instantaneous diastolic transmitral pressure difference was computed from the M-

124 he convective and inertial components of the transmitral pressure difference.

125 ant relation was observed between Ea and the transmitral pressure gradient (r = 0.57, p = 0.04).

126 er, there was no relation between Ea and the transmitral pressure gradient in experimental stages whe

127 ease in regurgitant flow and orifice area as transmitral pressure increased.

128 affected regurgitant orifice area; however, transmitral pressure made a stronger contribution (r2 =

129 the time courses of mitral annular area and transmitral pressure on dynamic changes in regurgitant o

130 ssion analysis, both mitral annular area and transmitral pressure significantly affected regurgitant

131 global ventricular dysfunction with reduced transmitral pressure to close the leaflets.

132 tant orifice area that mirrored increases in transmitral pressure, while mitral annular area changed

133 papillary muscle position, annular size, and transmitral pressure, with direct regurgitant flow rate

134 st with TTE using native tissue harmonics or transmitral pulsed wave Doppler have quantitated PFO fun

135 ime: r = -0.55), and filling pressure (early transmitral to early annular diastolic velocity ratio: r

136 o increased transaortic, transpulmonary, and transmitral valve blood flow by 48 +/- 6.6%, 67 +/- 13.3

137 Transmitral velocities and the E/A ratio did not differ

138 severity of mitral regurgitation (MR), peak transmitral velocities during early (E wave) and late (A

139 severity of mitral regurgitation (MR), peak transmitral velocities during early (E-wave) and late (A

140 These include the ratio of early diastolic transmitral velocity (E) to early myocardial velocity me

141 on, early transmitral velocity/late (atrial) transmitral velocity (E/A) ratio, global longitudinal st

142 sion in the ratio of early to late diastolic transmitral velocity and a 79% prolongation of the isovo

143 ficity compared with early-to-late diastolic transmitral velocity ratio (p < 0.01), average early dia

144 cificity relative to early-to-late diastolic transmitral velocity ratio, e', and strain.

145 e, left ventricular mass, and alterations in transmitral velocity that can precede the diagnosis of H

146 The ratio of early transmitral velocity to tissue Doppler mitral annular ea

147 recorded using pulsed wave Doppler (E), late transmitral velocity wave recorded using pulsed wave Dop

148 asures (coronary artery calcification, early transmitral velocity/late (atrial) transmitral velocity

149 Early transmitral velocity/tissue Doppler mitral annular early