ライフサイエンスコーパス: ventricular assist device

1 art failure, heart transplantation, and left ventricular assist device.

2 nely discarded during implantation of a left ventricular assist device.

3 enation and removal of the percutaneous left ventricular assist device.

4 going implantation of a continuous flow left ventricular assist device.

5 ng hearts resolved after unloading by a left ventricular assist device.

6 nd these changes are not reversed after left ventricular assist device.

7 ling hearts chronically unloaded with a left ventricular assist device.

8 t may be implicated in remodeling after left ventricular assist device.

9 pport with the Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device.

10 eath, heart transplant, or placement of left ventricular assist device.

11 ed with a mechanical-bearing axial-flow left ventricular assist device.

12 iation between SIPAT and outcomes after left ventricular assist device.

13 atients with A-HF, including those with left ventricular assist devices.

14 anted with Heartmate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

15 tic stenosis, mitral regurgitation, and left ventricular assist devices.

16 d nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 3 had left ventricular assist devices.

17 evidence on outcomes of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

18 with the advent of more durable, implantable ventricular assist devices.

19 echnologically advanced, safe, and effective ventricular assist devices.

20 with the advent of more durable, implantable ventricular assist devices.

21 the current regulatory environment assessing ventricular assist devices.

22 ceptor/neprilysin inhibitor) therapy or left ventricular assist devices.

23 ic devices including pacing devices and left ventricular assist devices.

24 oreal membrane oxygenation, and placement of ventricular assist devices.

25 % left ventricular assist devices, 23% right ventricular assist devices, 18% biventricular assist dev

26 n pump (3.3% versus 3.8%; P=0.03) or durable ventricular assist device (22% versus 31.5%; P<0.001).

27 devices were included for analysis (59% left ventricular assist devices, 23% right ventricular assist

28 implanted in 502 patients with AMI: 443 left ventricular assist devices; 33 biventricular assist devi

29 ntra-aortic balloon pump 91.7%, percutaneous ventricular assist device 5.5%, pulmonary vein or transs

30 Compared with HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device alone, survival was equivalent

31 ssment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambu

32 ssment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management) demons

33 ailure, but their role in patients with left ventricular assist devices and cardiac transplant is unc

34 n of guideline-based medical therapy, use of ventricular assist devices and heart transplantation.

35 te increases over time in patients with left ventricular assist devices and is lowered by ablation.

36 common in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices and may lead to clinical deco

37 reflects the growing number of children with ventricular assist devices and the management of these p

38 nchronization therapy and evaluation of left ventricular assist devices and transplant vasculopathy.

39 the criteria for heart transplantation, left ventricular assist device, and palliative care are well

40 ortic balloon counterpulsation, percutaneous ventricular assist devices, and extra-corporeal membrane

41 Left ventricular assist devices are becoming an increasingly

42 r shortage for cardiac transplantation, left ventricular assist devices are frequently serving as a s

43 logical changes after implantation of a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT).

44 Despite the ability of left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT-LVA

45 patients who received the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device, as compared with preapproval

46 ients on ECMO at listing (50%) compared with ventricular assist device at listing (76%) or not on ECM

47 st device at listing (76%) or not on ECMO or ventricular assist device at listing (76%; P<0.0001).

48 past decade, including among patients with a ventricular assist device at listing; in 2010 and 2011,

49 AI in 232 patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist device at our institution.

50 ted 128 patients implanted with a first left ventricular assist device at the Cleveland Clinic from 2

51 erwent Tx from ECMO (3 years: 64%) versus on ventricular assist device at Tx (3 years: 84%) or not on

52 t device at Tx (3 years: 84%) or not on ECMO/ventricular assist device at Tx (3 years: 85%; P<0.0001)

53 ing mechanical circulatory support with left ventricular assist devices at various points in the traj

54 med concurrently during implantation of left ventricular assist devices, but the added procedural ris

55 Potential heart transplantation/left ventricular assist device candidacy is suggested by >/=1

56 er implementing durable continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) circulatory support.

57 and AVM-related GIBs in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) patients.

58 tcomes in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs), stratified by ant

59 rvival of patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs).

60 rified in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs).

61 current state of short-term, continuous-flow ventricular assist devices (CF-VADs) in the treatment of

62 Continuous flow ventricular assist devices (cfVADs) provide a life-savin

63 roponin, may assist in the diagnosis of left ventricular assist device complications and transplant r

64 In total, 49 patients had their left ventricular assist device deactivated before death, with

65 Most patients died within an hour of left ventricular assist device deactivation and all within 26

66 from heart failure (freedom from transplant/ventricular assist device/death) at 12 months.

67 ed caregiver before destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) implantation; howeve

68 Destination therapy left ventricular assist devices (DT LVADs) are one of the mos

69 ipient diabetes (P = 0.051) and preoperative ventricular assist device/extracorporeal membranous oxyg

70 The remaining 10% were supported with ventricular assist devices for an average of 38 (20-60)

71 acy, and role of different percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for hemodynamic support durin

72 s and </=18 months by a continuous flow left ventricular assist device from June 2006 to December 201

73 vement in outcomes now possible with durable ventricular assist devices has led to a significant incr

74 ced heart failure, heart transplant and left ventricular assist devices have been the mainstay of tre

75 Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices have replaced first-generatio

76 patients supported by a continuous flow left ventricular assist device (Heart Mate II) from June 2006

77 -0.88]; P<0.0001) and the composite of death/ventricular assist device/heart transplantation (hazard

78 were obtained from 4 patients without a left ventricular assist device (HF group: mean age, 58.3+/-8.

79 m repair (n = 12633), or a percutaneous left ventricular assist device implant (n = 1816) between Jan

80 se mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implant and a secondary arrhyt

81 , heart transplantation, or destination left ventricular assist device implantation (DHF/HTx/VAD); an

82 F(CABG), n=5; and HFrEF(CABG), n=5), or left ventricular assist device implantation (HFrEF(LVAD), n=4

83 tions, including bleeding, stroke, and right ventricular assist device implantation (P<0.01 for all).

84 ained before and after (median=82 days) left ventricular assist device implantation (stage D; primary

85 28], cardiac transplantation [n=55], or left ventricular assist device implantation [n=9]).

86 occurred in 433 patients (21.7%) after left ventricular assist device implantation and was associate

87 ients with advanced heart failure undergoing ventricular assist device implantation are strongly infl

88 one choose between transplantation and left ventricular assist device implantation if advanced thera

89 er the ACA is also associated with increased ventricular assist device implantation in blacks.

90 imely referrals for transplantation and left ventricular assist device implantation play a key role i

91 was not associated with immediate changes in ventricular assist device implantation rates by race.

92 Acute right heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device implantation remains a major s

93 sies of multiple HF patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation surgery.

94 c tissue of patients with HF undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation surgery.

95 median (25th-75th percentile) time from left ventricular assist device implantation to death was 14 (

96 hCPCs isolated from patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation were engineered t

97 s with aortic valve (AV) surgery before left ventricular assist device implantation were excluded fro

98 t catheterization within 30 days before left ventricular assist device implantation were included.

99 ult patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation with mainstream d

100 ajor CV events (death, transplantation, left ventricular assist device implantation).

101 s), 262 (68.6%) underwent isolated HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device implantation, 75 (19.6%) a con

102 After Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device implantation, lactate levels d

103 accounting for the competing risk of death, ventricular assist device implantation, or cardiac trans

104 not impact expected gains in HRQOL following ventricular assist device implantation, provided the con

105 mon complications after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

106 y right-sided heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device implantation.

107 and 5 women needed heart transplantation or ventricular assist device implantation.

108 latory patients enrolled in INTERMACS before ventricular assist device implantation.

109 at the time of heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation.

110 unction following initiation on ARNI or left ventricular assist device implantation.

111 e surgical procedures, may be unsuitable for ventricular assist device implantation.

112 -0.61]; P<0.0001) and the composite of death/ventricular assist device implantation/heart transplanta

113 ed in 8 of their 18 core proteins after left ventricular assist devices implantation.

114 , compared with 381 HFHs, 139 deaths, and 17 ventricular assist device implantations and/or transplan

115 estimate change in census-adjusted rates of ventricular assist device implants by race and ACA adopt

116 Mechanical support with left ventricular assist device improved all of these metaboli

117 fficacy of the Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device in patients with cardiogenic s

118 Data from patients receiving the HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device in the ADVANCE bridge to trans

119 ry end point of death/urgent transplantation/ventricular assist device in the derivation cohorts and

120 ergoing VT ablation with a percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in 6 centers in the United St

121 Registry Evaluation of Vital Information for Ventricular Assist Devices in Ambulatory Life) were anal

122 left ventricular tissue obtained during left ventricular assist device insertion (heart failure sampl

123 uggest that the Berlin Heart EXCOR Pediatric ventricular assist device is superior to extracorporeal

124 e complex trade-offs of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices is challenging and made more

125 orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT), left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination therapy

126 points after mechanical unloading by a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) by small RNA sequencing

127 The decision to pursue a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) commits loved ones to m

128 istory of ischemic cardiomyopathy after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) endocarditis caused by

129 RT management following continuous flow Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implant vary: some cent

130 m creatinine (sCr) improves early after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation but subseq

131 Timing of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in advance

132 piratory failure on patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is not wel

133 precursor cells (MPCs) injected during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation may contri

134 The effect of DM on post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation outcomes i

135 dvanced heart failure therapies such as left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation require in

136 emergency heart transplantation, 1 had left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, and 1 pat

137 of major morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

138 of mortality after continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

139 ght-ventricular failure (RVF) following left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

140 A left ventricular assist device (LVAD) improves survival and q

141 ) II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in a commercial setting

142 efinition of the extent and severity of left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) infection may facilitat

143 efinition of the extent and severity of left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) infection may facilitat

144 Mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established treat

145 Reports of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) malfunction have focuse

146 hock patients to receive an implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplant, or

147 athy (NICM) have shown that a subset of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients can achieve si

148 te to positive or negative outcomes for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients remains unclea

149 flammation in human subjects undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement as a bridge t

150 After left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement for advanced

151 atients with end-stage HF who underwent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement were studied.

152 heart failure (RHF) occurs commonly in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients, and increas

153 The number of centers with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) research programs focus

154 Implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) reverses some of the me

155 HR) tests can guide the optimization of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) speed and direct medica

156 hythmias (VAs) while on continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support has not been we

157 MII) (Thoratec, Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support.

158 splasia develops during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support.

159 in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) surgery.

160 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves myocar

161 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves the he

162 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy is an increasin

163 Infection is a serious complication of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy.

164 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) unloading and hemodynam

165 longitudinal effects of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) unloading on myocardial

166 a-aortic balloon pump, and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) was also identified in

167 ced heart failure patients selected for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) were more likely to be

168 vascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and transcatheter aort

169 n patients with the HeartMate II (HMII) left ventricular assist device (LVAD), but the impact of AF o

170 ilure (termed responders [R]) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced mechanical unlo

171 ity in patients with end-stage HF after left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced remodeling to i

172 se animal data, the notion that chronic left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced unloading will

173 ssions after implantation of axial flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

174 listed for transplant or scheduled for left ventricular assist device (LVAD; 60 patients), in patien

175 Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) as a bridge (BTT) to h

176 nical unloading (MU) by implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) has become clinical ro

177 Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) provide cardiac suppor

178 th decreased waitlist survival while on left ventricular assist device (LVADs) support and after HT.

179 is in patients with HeartMate II (HMII) left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) (Thoratec Corporation

180 orta from patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and directly measure

181 event in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and is caused by arte

182 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly u

183 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being used in pat

184 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being used with i

185 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly used

186 in response to mechanical unloading by left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has been demonstrated

187 f heart failure (HF) patients receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has decoupling of the

188 Survival of patients on left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has improved.

189 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used as an

190 Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have revolutionized a

191 The number of Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs) implanted each year i

192 s now exist that define deactivation of Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs) in futility as now de

193 Data for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) in patients with noni

194 Bridge to transplantation (BTT) with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is a mainstay of ther

195 ricular unloading after implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) on mitochondrial cont

196 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide better outcom

197 Although intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide greater hemod

198 These early left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) suffered significant

199 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were developed as a m

200 , 7,904 (32%) were bridged with durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), 177 (0.7%) with ECMO

201 an uncommon, but severe complication of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

202 tality in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

203 anced heart failure therapies including left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

204 Improved safety of left ventricular assist devices means that these are becoming

205 interval, 4.19-8.61; P<0.001), need for left ventricular assist device (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confide

206 rrent valve procedures and 85% for HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device only at 1 year; P=0.33).

207 t in an adult or pediatric patient who has a ventricular assist device or total artificial heart.

208 censored at implantation of a defibrillator, ventricular assist device, or cardiac transplantation),

209 omes: (1) composite end point of death, left ventricular assist device, or heart transplant, and (2)

210 defined outcome was freedom from death, left ventricular assist device, or heart transplantation over

211 ching to central bilateral centrifugal pump, ventricular-assist device, or total artificial heart.

212 ongest multicenter follow-up of primary left ventricular assist device outcomes.

213 P = 0.031), recipient preoperative bilateral ventricular assist device (P < 0.001), and preoperative

214 review of Heartmate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients at 2 centers from Jan

215 otic therapy identifies continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients at major risk for CVA

216 the aortic stenosis rabbit model and in left ventricular assist device patients demonstrated that ind

217 One in every 10 left ventricular assist device patients demonstrates partial

218 ed device thrombosis in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients varies widely, rangin

219 e analysis evaluated 51 continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients who received secondar

220 Importantly, 9% of all left ventricular assist device patients who were not explante

221 METHODS AND Thirty HeartWare ventricular assist device patients with stable renal fun

222 l of dabigatran versus phenprocoumon in left ventricular assist device patients.

223 A basic understanding of left ventricular assist device physiology is essential to the

224 d a previous GI bleeding history before left ventricular assist device placement (33% versus 5%; P=0.

225 hazard ratio for death, transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement in HF-REF patients w

226 lure, heart failure-related hospitalization, ventricular assist device placement, cardiac transplanta

227 e time of coronary artery revascularization, ventricular assist device placement, or heart transplant

228 support with a microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) on renal function afte

229 Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVADs) are increasingly bei

230 transfusion by surgery type (excluding left ventricular assist device procedures/transplant) (HR: 1.

231 Left ventricular assist devices prolong the lives of patients

232 Current-generation left ventricular assist devices provide circulatory support t

233 olutions per minute) in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device pump speed from a maximum of 1

234 ctuarial survival after continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices ranged from 56% to 87% at 1 y

235 Patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device receiving secondary prophylaxi

236 o outcomes for contemporary destination left ventricular assist device recipients.

237 alization are at high risk for death or left ventricular assist device rescue.

238 (cardiac transplantation, implantation of a ventricular assist device, resuscitation after sudden ca

239 ant risk factors associated with early right ventricular assist device (RVAD) use in patients undergo

240 samples) and at heart transplant (post-left ventricular assist device samples).

241 ocardiography are essential to optimize left ventricular assist device settings and cardiac performan

242 he totality of data for continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices show consistent improvements

243 lure receiving mechanical unloading via left ventricular assist devices show increased CTCF abundance

244 e the reversibility of these defects by left ventricular assist device suggests metabolic resilience

245 14% vs. 22%, p = 0.03), required more right ventricular assist device support (19% vs. 11% vs. 6%, p

246 atients despite more frequent need for right ventricular assist device support and increased bleeding

247 of myocardial recovery on contemporary left ventricular assist device support are poorly defined bec

248 ients with >/=1 serious adverse event during ventricular assist device support as those without an ev

249 prove successful temporary weaning from left ventricular assist device support at 6 months.

250 ransplant now require longer periods of left ventricular assist device support in patients.

251 sk, higher DOPBP during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support was significantly asso

252 Use of neurohormonal blockers on left ventricular assist device support was significantly high

253 ty and mortality during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support yet their relation to

254 or blocker usage during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support, and a more prevalent

255 graft function, primarily in recipients with ventricular assist device support, overall survival and

256 Thoratec Corp., Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device support, with focus on the sub

257 rt transplant patients not transplanted with ventricular assist device support.

258 ed as a complication of continuous flow left ventricular assist device support; however, its long-ter

259 vents are common during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support; yet, their relation t

260 In failing left ventricular assist device-supported hearts, S100A1 and s

261 ular hypertrophy), failing, and failing left ventricular assist device-supported hearts.

262 Left ventricular assist device-supported patients are usually

263 ort) RHF classification to predict post-left ventricular assist device survival and (2) preoperative

264 ormation on patients receiving the HeartWare ventricular assist device system as a bridge to transpla

265 tes that long-term support using a HeartWare ventricular assist device system offers survival of 51%

266 23 of those are on their original HeartWare ventricular assist device system.

267 xplore whether temporary circulatory support-ventricular assist devices (TCS-VAD) have a survival adv

268 ted to improved outcomes with long-term left ventricular assist device technology, but have also led

269 Among subjects with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices, the restoration of pulsatile

270 e technologies is critical to the success of ventricular assist device therapy and the health of pati

271 t of patients with advanced HF evaluated for ventricular assist device therapy.

272 similar survival for women and men with left ventricular assist devices, there are sex differences in

273 pecific pathological processes, such as left ventricular assist device thrombosis and profiling of le

274 dden death, class III/IV heart failure, left ventricular assist device/transplant, atrial fibrillatio

275 oreal life support, percutaneous and durable ventricular assist devices, transplantation capabilities

276 lysis analysis of data sites discussing left ventricular assist device treatment for heart failure.

277 normal, failed and partially recovered (left ventricular assist device treatment) adult human hearts.

278 d mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device, treatment with the interleuki

279 ears) with Heartmate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices underwent hemodynamic and sym

280 MD and cardiomyopathy-matched cohorts except ventricular assist device use (16% versus 30%; P=0.017),

281 ssment of psychosocial impairment after left ventricular assist device using the SIPAT score was not

282 t for teaching patients and their caregivers ventricular assist device (VAD) self-care skills.

283 diopulmonary exercise testing without HTx or ventricular assist device (VAD) support was compared wit

284 Ventricular assist device (VAD) technology has evolved s

285 Ventricular assist device (VAD) therapy has become an im

286 We evaluated a continuous-flow external ventricular assist device (VAD), CentriMag VAD (Thoratec

287 Ventricular assist devices (VAD), a mainstay of therapy

288 es of patients with AMI who received durable ventricular assist devices (VAD).

289 costs among Medicare beneficiaries receiving ventricular assist devices (VADs) and associations betwe

290 Ventricular assist devices (VADs) have revolutionized he

291 ythmias in patients supported with long-term ventricular assist devices (VADs).

292 ernatives to heart transplantation is use of ventricular assist devices (VADs).

293 -stage heart failure patients supported with ventricular assist devices (VADs).

294 magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device was associated with less frequ

295 he long-term period (181-730 days after left ventricular assist device) was 3.3 times lower for the H

296 lasting VF occurring in 3 patients with left ventricular assist device were analyzed.

297 magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device were less likely to have pump

298 bined outcome of mortality/urgent transplant/ventricular assist device were modestly increased in the

299 ned end points of death, transplant, or left ventricular assist device were tracked during 4 years.

300 rtery pressure to stroke volume) before left ventricular assist device, were identified as significan