ライフサイエンスコーパス: ventricular ejection fraction

1 Three of 170 patients (2%) had abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction.

2 gradient >=40 mm Hg) SAS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

3 ical and imaging covariates, including right ventricular ejection fraction.

4 sponse was defined as >=10% increase in left ventricular ejection fraction.

5 ey disease, and independent of previous left ventricular ejection fraction.

6 cer but is associated with a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction.

7 n-creatinine ratio, or prerandomization left ventricular ejection fraction.

8 tricular arrhythmias, regardless of the left ventricular ejection fraction.

9 SCD/VT/VF, which was independent of the left ventricular ejection fraction.

10 atients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

11 stion, but no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction.

12 al, 1.09-2.07), but not with decline in left ventricular ejection fraction.

13 c arrest do not have a markedly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

14 occur in the setting of more preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

15 icularly in those with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

16 ction, and body mass index but not with left ventricular ejection fraction.

17 leads with T-wave inversion, left and right ventricular ejection fraction.

18 coronary artery territory, and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction.

19 e gadolinium enhancement, and left and right ventricular ejection fractions.

20 0.13 g/m(2) [-1.6 to 1.3], P=0.86), or right ventricular ejection fraction (-0.23% [-1.2 to 0.8], P=0

21 I/IVa symptoms despite medical therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction 25% to 45%, and not eligib

22 an age, 67.5+/-9.2 years; men, 61; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 25.1+/-10.8%) in whom cli

23 with HFrEF, mean age of 57 years, mean left-ventricular ejection fraction, 26%, and 12 (17%) with ty

24 an age=49-80 years, sex=0%-92% females, left ventricular ejection fraction=26%-61%).

25 spectively enrolled (age 62+/-11 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 27+/-7%).

26 LAVAs, 21 patients (age, 57+/-14 years; left ventricular ejection fraction, 30+/-10%) had both VT and

27 Of 574 consecutive patients (left ventricular ejection fraction 32 +/- 9%; age 65 +/- 13 y

28 s, mean age 56+/-14 years (29% female), left ventricular ejection fraction 33+/-11%, and 25% having N

29 ents (121 men), aged 67.4+/-11.9 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 33.1+/-13.6% (n=137), and

30 bjects, 88% male, 66+/-9 years old with left ventricular ejection fraction 34+/-6% were included.

31 from baseline was seen in 4, including left ventricular ejection fraction (34%-36% with sacubitril-v

32 Study 1: 16 chronic HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction: 37+/-3%) were randomized

33 -11 years, median [interquartile range] left ventricular ejection fraction 38.7% [37.2-39.0]), 1018 (

34 lar dysfunction and remodeling post-MI (left ventricular ejection fraction, 41+/-11 in MI-vehicle ver

35 (72 +/- 12 years of age, 57% male, and left ventricular ejection fraction 45 +/- 17%).

36 of 789 patients with chronic HFpEF and left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or higher with New Yor

37 V, 72 patients undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 +/- 17.4% vs. 55.3 +

38 lar ejection fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 45+/-6%), RV dysfunction

39 tients (69% males, age 44 +/- 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 49 +/- 14%) with myocardit

40 ents (39%; 73% men; age, 41+/-25 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 49+/-16%) with high incide

41 owed significantly reduced LV systolic (left ventricular ejection fraction = 49+/-10% versus 58+/-10%

42 1) and had more comorbidities and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (50% [40-58] versus 55% [4

43 ection fraction (per 10% decrement from left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%; hazard ratio, 1.63 [

44 patients (age 51 +/- 14 years, 91% men, left ventricular ejection fraction 52% +/- 9%) had history of

45 reduced LV systolic function (mean+/-SD left ventricular ejection fraction = 52+/-11% versus 63+/-8%;

46 explanted within 18 months (pre-explant left ventricular ejection fraction, 57+/-8%; end-diastolic di

47 s (asymptomatic/atypical symptoms, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 58+/-2%; 43% male) with su

48 S (N=493, age 56+/-15 years, 61% women, left ventricular ejection fraction 64+/-8%), higher VE/VCO2(n

49 +/-9.2 versus 69.4+/-8.6 mm Hg, P=0.02; left ventricular ejection fraction, 68.9+/-8.5 versus 54.2+/-

50 ut (+2,021 +/- 956 mL; p = 0.002), and right ventricular ejection fraction (+7.6% +/- 1.5%; p = 0.032

51 mpared with LVH- FD, LVH+ FD had higher left ventricular ejection fraction (73% versus 68%), more lat

52 and echocardiogram data, including the left ventricular ejection fraction (a measure of contractile

53 Left ventricular ejection fraction-a conventional indicator o

54 ntly in men and women and patients with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below the median

55 ed consistent performance to detect low left ventricular ejection fraction across a range of racial/e

56 placebo, did not significantly improve left ventricular ejection fraction after 52 weeks.

57 ients with symptomatic HF with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction and 97 participants withou

58 York Heart Association classification, left ventricular ejection fraction and end-diastolic diameter

59 gnificantly with MR imaging measures of left ventricular ejection fraction and end-systolic volume, b

60 or for postoperative mortality, but how left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms

61 would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms

62 ortional-hazards analysis, adjusted for left ventricular ejection fraction and known predictors of ho

63 .1 to 92.7; p < 0.0001)-despite similar left ventricular ejection fraction and N-terminal pro-B-type

64 Despite normal left ventricular ejection fraction and serum biomarkers, pati

65 e was no association between changes in left ventricular ejection fraction and subsequent death.

66 cohol consumption, history of diabetes, left ventricular ejection fraction, and anemia.

67 ive relationships with age, female sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, and body mass index.

68 Ivabradine treatment improved left ventricular ejection fraction, and clinical status and Q

69 d more likely to be black, have a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and higher preindex healt

70 rejection, time since transplantation, left ventricular ejection fraction, and indexed right ventric

71 rejection, time since transplantation, left ventricular ejection fraction, and indexed right ventric

72 s associated with symptoms or a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and patient preference pl

73 Heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction, and presence of signs or

74 on, coronary disease, left atrial size, left ventricular ejection fraction, and year of ablation.

75 ase, worse renal function, and impaired left ventricular ejection fraction; and were more often sympt

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

77 ccurrence of atrial arrhythmias and low left ventricular ejection fraction, as estimated using multiv

78 p exhibited significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction at 3, 6, and 12 months of

79 The primary outcome measure was left ventricular ejection fraction at 52 weeks, assessed by m

80 The mean left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline and at 52 week

81 SE=0.23), % females (B=-0.38, SE=0.04), left ventricular ejection fraction (B=-0.81, SE=0.20), and bo

82 BioBank, hiPSI TTNtv carriers had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (beta=-12%, P=3x10(-7)), a

83 (odds ratio, 3.8 [2.4-6.0]), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (beta=-3.4%, P=1x10(-7)).

84 with stable ischemic cardiomyopathy, a left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 50%, and d

85 In a subset of participants with left ventricular ejection fraction captured within the year b

86 Echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction change from baseline to mo

87 good in the LG AS groups with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the HG group

88 of trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity (left ventricular ejection fraction decrease >10%, or >5% if b

89 atients with LG severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased DI<0.25 is a re

90 erse remodeling, there was a subsequent left ventricular ejection fraction decrement.

91 ensitivity analyses featuring alternate left ventricular ejection fraction definitions, or stricter i

92 iation functional class III or IV HF or left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) <30% were excluded.

93 Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is an indicator of ca

94 Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) recovery is associate

95 Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to >35% occurs in man

96 d the incremental value of considering right ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of futu

97 ovides incremental value in addition to left ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of sudd

98 patients with chronic HF with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction from 34 Dutch outpatient H

99 rastuzumab group had a > 10% decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from baseline to a value <

100 olutional neural network to predict low left ventricular ejection fraction from the ECG.

101 lded incremental prognostic value above left ventricular ejection fraction, global longitudinal strai

102 ere assessed in subgroups stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction > or <=50%.

103 In HFpEF, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40%, we derived propens

104 Among those with a left ventricular ejection fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ven

105 ore <=2), echocardiographic measures of left ventricular ejection fraction >50%, and a normal regiona

106 Right ventricular ejection fraction >54%, 37-54%, and <37% ide

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

108 ed primary outcomes were improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction >=10% and improvement in t

109 A left ventricular ejection fraction >=35% (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0

110 SCD in 200 patients on dialysis with a left ventricular ejection fraction >=35%, after adequate scre

111 Using data on patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >=45% from 3 large HFpEF t

112 x <35 mL/m(2)) and LG; and normal-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction >=50% and stroke volume in

113 and LG (CLF-LG); paradoxical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction >=50% but stroke volume in

114 ithout known cardiovascular disease and left ventricular ejection fraction >=50% were included.

115 ssure gradient <40 mm Hg) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction >=50% were studied.

116 (63+/-14 years, 60% men) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>60%) and chronic moderat

117 ial coronary artery disease and healthy left ventricular ejection fraction (>=40%) at a clinical rest

118 ic valve area <1.5 cm(2)) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>=50%) followed in the he

119 ith congestive heart failure or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction had a higher risk of nonar

120 Left ventricular ejection fraction has conventionally been us

121 ow flow high gradient SAS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction have a considerable increa

122 f patients with severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction have Vmax in this range, w

123 atients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an independ

124 tested patients (54%), and a decreased left ventricular ejection fraction in 8 of 29 (28%); each occ

125 HF drugs to HF patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in a European setting.

126 vealed a significantly decreased global left ventricular ejection fraction in parallel with increased

127 months, there was a greater increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients taking ivabrad

128 ) decreased infarct volume and improved left ventricular ejection fraction in pigs.

129 ], P=0.02) and no significant change of left ventricular ejection fraction in the cell group.

130 as left ventricular reverse remodeling (left ventricular ejection fraction increase by >=10% or norma

131 Left ventricular ejection fraction increased >=10% in 46.5% o

132 Left ventricular ejection fraction increased 8+/-1% ( P<0.001

133 rial fibrillation, AS-related symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction, indexed left ventricular

134 ambulation; fall in vital capacity and left ventricular ejection fraction; interventions such as spi

135 ardiac phenotype characterized by lower left ventricular ejection fraction, irrespective of the clini

136 ction (LVSD), defined as occurring when left ventricular ejection fraction is <50%.

137 sideration of ICD implantation when the left ventricular ejection fraction is <=35% improves the rate

138 1 cm(2)) aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction is based on a classificati

139 lthough usually associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, isolated RV systolic dysf

140 hypertension, systolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass ind

141 We included only patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, and exclude

142 Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40%

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

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

145 Two hundred sixty-one patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=35% and New York Heart

146 t and control groups in HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%).

147 tients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%.

148 We studied patients with systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction </=45%) and mild to modera

149 RV dysfunction was defined as right ventricular ejection fraction </=45%.

150 gical risk; exclusion criteria included left ventricular ejection fraction <30% or screening suggesti

151 based on one of the following factors: left ventricular ejection fraction <30% within 4 days after S

152 were reduced the most among those with left ventricular ejection fraction <30%.

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

154 erapy if prior myocardial infarction or left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.

155 itor or angiotensin receptor blocker if left ventricular ejection fraction <40% and/or diabetes melli

156 secutive patients with HFrEF defined by left ventricular ejection fraction <40% prospectively referre

157 tion (HFrEF; heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction <40%) referred for stress

158 istry and divided them into SHIFT type (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, New York Heart Assoc

159 Right ventricular ejection fraction <45% was associated with s

160 r had congenital heart disease, had systemic ventricular ejection fraction <45%, symptomatic heart fa

161 Patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and sinus rhythm shou

162 ysis of 16,740 individual patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% from 10 double-blind,

163 ay be subdivided in classical low-flow (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) and LG (CLF-LG); par

164 iagnosing left ventricular dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) was 43% (95% CI, 33%

165 Primary prevention patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <=35% and no pacing indica

166 rk designed to identify patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction <=35% from the 12-lead ECG

167 e ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <=35% without prior histor

168 failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction <=35%) and atrial fibrilla

169 s (ICDs) are indicated in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <=35%, but many eligible p

170 n functional class II or greater with a left ventricular ejection fraction <=40% and a modest elevati

171 ation functional class II to IV, with a left ventricular ejection fraction <=40% and elevation of NT-

172 tients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction <=40% during steady-state

173 ts with Class II-IV heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction <=40% were randomized to r

174 Treated HFrEF was defined by (1) left ventricular ejection fraction <=40%, (2) >=1 in/outpatie

175 Association functional class II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <=40%, and elevated natriu

176 ed controlled trial of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <=40%, New York Heart Asso

177 New York Heart Association class >=II, left ventricular ejection fraction <=45%, and iron deficiency

178 Abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%) and mean LS (Z scor

179 on-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<=35%) were eligible for

180 eft ventricular (LV) systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction), LV diastolic function (e

181 ere implanted with CRT owing to reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF<=35%), New York Hear

182 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35% with >5.7% lat

183 ion and on discharge in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >= 40%.

184 on <33 mm/m(2) and absolute increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >=10%.

185 t Association functional class II/III), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >=55%, and N-termin

186 den cardiac death (SCD) in those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%.

187 ted with significant improvement in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (45.8 increasing to

188 Ablation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean difference, 6

189 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) alone has not been

190 AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication f

191 l coupling, and their associations with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure s

192 c validity of feature-tracking-CMR over left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and myocardial dama

193 We evaluated the utility of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography

194 nt, and (2) degree of echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) change after CRT.

195 emoglobin and troponin on admission and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during hospitalizat

196 c or dilated cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) face a high risk fo

197 opathy who were now asymptomatic, whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) had improved from l

198 cts on left ventricular dysfunction and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement followi

199 Long-term trajectories of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure (H

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

201 It is unclear whether reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is an independent p

202 ere aortic stenosis (AS) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) may have poorer pro

203 diac failure-related adverse events and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) reductions.

204 inherent limitations of the use of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to accurately pheno

205 assessed by adverse events, changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and clinical labor

206 ), resting and Valsalva LVOT gradients, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and numerical rati

207 defined an ideal heart donor by age and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and then reviewed

208 r oral thiamin supplementation improves left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), exercise tolerance

209 rements of left ventricular dimensions, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure func

210 Age, symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end-systolic di

211 We collected left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), prior HF history,

212 lure (HF) patients are classified using left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), this categorizatio

213 r 4 weeks to allow complete recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), versus 5 sham cont

214 rillation (AF) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

215 ination of left ventricular volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

216 nformed etiology, functional class, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

217 s were noted after stratifying based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

218 identified 472 donor hearts with LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=40%) on initial

219 rdiac index 3 L/min per m(2) or less or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% or less) and se

220 CCC with either a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]).

221 ients with a CIED (1.1 mL/min/g; median left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 52.5%) and patient

222 bserved with echocardiography (baseline left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 61%; global longit

223 Of these, 96 correlated with left ventricular ejection fraction measured at 4 months post-

224 We then correlated plasma proteins with left ventricular ejection fraction measured at 4 months post-

225 The left ventricular ejection fraction measured using magnetic re

226 raditional cardiovascular risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial scar and ische

227 uded nonadherence (n=109, 89%), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (n=104, 85%), coronary all

228 ion and subgroup analyses revealed that left ventricular ejection fraction, not the extent of left ve

229 olic augmentation (absolute increase in left ventricular ejection fraction, obese +16+/-7% versus con

230 3 acute kidney injury were preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI,

231 % (10/27) showed an improvement in mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 13+/-6%.

232 fety of levosimendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who were un

233 ry bypass grafting (CABG) and who had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or lower, we prospe

234 was 32+/-12% (range, 6-54%) with mean right ventricular ejection fraction of 48+/-15% (range, 7-78%)

235 thickness (HR, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.4]), left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% to 60% (HR, 1.8 [95

236 tory stage II-IIIC breast cancer, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 55% or more were random

237 .9+/-14.5 years (82 male) with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of 57.1+/-11.2%.

238 GFR <60 mL.min(-1).1.73 m(-2), a median left ventricular ejection fraction of 62%, and a median CFR o

239 p performance status of 0, 1, or 2, and left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 53%.

240 In patients with iron deficiency, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%, and who

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

242 xicity was defined as a decrease in the left ventricular ejection fraction or an increase in serum tr

243 was no association between serum Pi and left ventricular ejection fraction or volumes.

244 III/IV symptoms, transaortic gradient, left ventricular ejection fraction, or procedural characteris

245 further associated with a reduction of left ventricular ejection fraction ( P=0.03) and elevated lef

246 r risk factors, but significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction (p < 0.001) and lower rate

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

248 brillator implantation (P=0.021), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.004), AIDA-positive s

249 d to compacted myocardium (P<0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.01).

250 elative area change was associated with left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.045) and ventricular-

251 D implantation predicted high post-LVAD left ventricular ejection fractions (P<0.01) and ejection fra

252 s with both lower right ventricular and left ventricular ejection fractions (P=0.027 and P=0.027, res

253 rences in spirometry, lung volumes, and left ventricular ejection fraction, patients with hypocapnia

254 ctional cohort of patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, patients with lower systo

255 , 1.89 [95% CI, 1.04-3.44]; P=0.04) and left ventricular ejection fraction (per 10% decrement from le

256 1.32 [95% CI, 1.19-1.46]; P<0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction (per 10%: HR, 0.88 [95% CI

257 se, presence of valvular heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction phenotype (heart failure w

258 gistry of Acute Coronary Events) score, left ventricular ejection fraction, pro-B-type natriuretic pe

259 ypotension, troponin elevation, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary edema, and card

260 owever, PPM is associated with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction recovery post-transcathete

261 (HF) therapy in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction remain lower than guidelin

262 aortic stenosis (AS) despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction remains challenging.

263 Left ventricular ejection fraction remains the primary risk s

264 ejection fraction and HF with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, respectively.

265 post-transverse aortic constriction/MI (left ventricular ejection fraction+/-SD, 36+/-8 in vehicle ve

266 ntercalated disc and modestly decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, suggesting ZO-1 is differ

267 ns and symptoms of heart failure have a left ventricular ejection fraction that is not markedly abnor

268 ment, despite no significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction, the diastolic function an

269 After adjusting for age and left ventricular ejection fraction, the peri-infarct zone, as

270 Left ventricular ejection fraction, tricuspid annular peak sy

271 Age, sex, body mass index, left ventricular ejection fraction, type 2 diabetes mellitus,

272 ltivariate model including ischemia and left ventricular ejection fraction, UMI and RMI maintained ro

273 disease and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undertook, after careful t

274 arning algorithm designed to detect low left ventricular ejection fraction using the 12-lead ECG vari

275 nformation, which did not include exact left ventricular ejection fraction values, investigations per

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

277 c and 20% temporary mechanical support, left ventricular ejection fraction was 14.5+/-5.3%, end-diast

278 age was 61 years, 86% were men, median left ventricular ejection fraction was 20%, 81% had ischemic

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

280 n age was 64 years, 75% were male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32%, and peak VO2 was

281 hemic dilated cardiomyopathy), the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32+/-12% (range, 6-54%

282 of other race/ethnicity, and the median left ventricular ejection fraction was 34%.

283 was 57+/-15 years, 41% were males, and left ventricular ejection fraction was 47+/-11.8%.

284 Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was 50.7%, increasing to 5

285 wall thickness was 22.9 +/- 8.7 mm and left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.4 +/- 6.6%.

286 170+/-21 beats per minute, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 54.7+/-14.3%.

287 A) functional class III to IV, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 58%.

288 lar wall thickness was 18 +/- 8 mm, and left ventricular ejection fraction was 61 +/- 12%.

289 The left ventricular ejection fraction was consistently decreased

290 ive arterial diameter, systolic BP, and left ventricular ejection fraction was fairly predictive of u

291 Left ventricular ejection fraction was measured at baseline a

292 An increase in left ventricular ejection fraction was observed only among pa

293 Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction was present in over half o

294 We observed that the improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly greater

295 le right ventricular stroke volume and right ventricular ejection fraction were decreased (p = 0.047

296 en 2013 and 2015, patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were managed by 93 provide

297 th severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent AVR.

298 equency methods can be used to document left ventricular ejection fraction with accuracy comparable w

299 while echocardiography showed a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, with no apparent regional

300 ent were increasing age, lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, worse post-procedural mit