ライフサイエンスコーパス: HFrEF

1 mrEF and risk ratio, 0.90 [0.88-0.92] versus HFrEF).

2 served and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFrEF).

3 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

4 ents with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

5 erved (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

6 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

7 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF).

8 ure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

9 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

10 FPEF) rather than reduced ejection fraction (HFREF).

11 with aortic stenosis and HF with reduced EF (HFREF).

12 hose with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

13 EF) versus HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

14 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF).

15 EF and hazard ratio, 0.84 [0.80-0.90] versus HFrEF).

16 ients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

17 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

18 act on population health among patients with HFrEF.

19 n filling pressure increases is augmented in HFrEF.

20 ith a greater increase in risk of HFpEF than HFrEF.

21 cohort comprising 320 patients with advanced HFrEF.

22 dence interval, 0.2-0.9; P<0.05), but not in HFrEF.

23 also with the level of renal dysfunction in HFrEF.

24 death (troponin T) are related to anemia in HFrEF.

25 trast to WRF occurring with RAAS blockade in HFrEF.

26 F and to explore differences in HFPEF versus HFREF.

27 3,285 (8.2%) had HFbEF, and 18,398 (46%) had HFrEF.

28 y predictors that differed between HFPEF and HFREF.

29 rs determine risk for new-onset HFPEF versus HFREF.

30 d left bundle-branch block predicted risk of HFREF.

31 %) were classified as HFPEF and 261 (56%) as HFREF.

32 s of the change in EF over time in HFpEF and HFrEF.

33 eater prognostic impact in HFpEF compared to HFrEF.

34 patients with HFpEF compared with those with HFrEF.

35 in personalizing prognosis and treatment in HFREF.

36 d between patients with HFpEF and those with HFrEF.

37 s between patients with HFpEF and those with HFrEF.

38 racteristics between those with HFPEF versus HFREF.

39 and women, HFPEF has a better prognosis than HFREF.

40 with EF data, 44.4% had HFPEF and 55.6% had HFREF.

41 egard to occurrence of hospitalized HFPEF or HFREF.

42 caemic control in patients with diabetes and HFrEF.

43 f oral iron supplementation in patients with HFrEF.

44 cardiovascular hospitalization in HFpEF and HFrEF.

45 iated with lower risk of HFpEF compared with HFrEF.

46 lycaemic drugs in patients with diabetes and HFrEF.

47 sus on how best to treat AF with concomitant HFrEF.

48 ate the likelihood of death in patients with HFrEF.

49 0 (62.3%) patients were classified as having HFrEF.

50 6) with HFpEF, and 42.9% (1481 of 3456) with HFrEF.

51 re used to define risk factors for HFpEF and HFrEF.

52 dity were associated with HFpEF but not with HFrEF.

53 rEF, patients with HFpEF, and patients with HFrEF.

54 ry prevention ICD placement in patients with HFrEF.

55 se C(a-v)o2 was lower in HFpEF compared with HFrEF (11.5+/-0.27 versus 13.5+/-0.34 mL/dL, respectivel

56 djusted mortality was 16.3% in patients with HFrEF, 13.2% in patients with HFpEF, and 4.8% in patient

57 ted and paradoxical discharge was similar in HFrEF (18:7) and controls (27:5), whereas LBPP elicited

58 Among 105,619 HF patients (48% with HFrEF, 52% with HFpEF), 10.4% (12.2% with HFrEF, 8.8% wi

59 IHD), 21% had HFmrEF (61% IHD), and 55% had HFrEF (60% IHD).

60 , all 3 groups had similar 5-year mortality (HFrEF 75.3% vs. HFpEF 75.7%; hazard ratio: 0.99 [95% con

61 th HFrEF, 52% with HFpEF), 10.4% (12.2% with HFrEF, 8.8% with HFpEF) received CR referral at discharg

62 In high-risk patients with HFrEF, a strategy of NT-proBNP-guided therapy was not mo

63 isk of outcomes in comparison with HFpEF and HFrEF, albeit not reaching statistical significance in f

64 In the age and propensity score-matched HFREF analysis, the HR was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.86; P <

65 A total of 8 studies (6 HFREF and 2 HFPEF, including 28 961 patients) were inclu

66 th (LURIC) study including 511 patients with HFrEF and 469 patients with HF with preserved ejection f

67 ting biomarkers profiles among patients with HFrEF and anemia (group 1), HFrEF without anemia (group

68 readmission rates were higher in those with HFrEF and HFbEF compared with those with HFpEF.

69 r HIV infection increases the risk of future HFrEF and HFpEF and to assess if this risk varies by soc

70 on, and identification of the mechanisms for HFrEF and HFpEF in the HIV-infected population.

71 ntrations, mitochondrial function, and EI in HFrEF and HFpEF patients and in healthy controls.

72 HFrEF and HFpEF patients with EI and increased fatigabil

73 referral is increasing over time among both HFrEF and HFpEF patients.

74 entrations and ATP flux rates were normal in HFrEF and HFpEF patients.

75 cs, which were intermediate between those of HFrEF and HFpEF, and comparable values of predicted peak

76 with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively) are not known.

77 inhibitors induce renal dysfunction in both HFREF and HFPEF.

78 mm3 was associated with an increased risk of HFrEF and HFpEF.

79 up, compared with the placebo group, in both HFREF and HFPEF.

80 oves peak exercise capacity in patients with HFrEF and iron deficiency.

81 of IHD events was similar for HFmrEF versus HFrEF and lower in HFpEF (hazard ratio, 0.89 [0.84-0.95]

82 ith baseline IHD were similar for HFmrEF and HFrEF and lower in HFpEF (risk ratio, 0.91 [0.89-0.93] v

83 s were procured transvascularly in HFPEF and HFREF and perioperatively in aortic stenosis.

84 Among 19,733 patients with HFrEF and primary prevention ICD, 61.1% filled any GDMT

85 ide production slope, which were better than HFrEF and similar to HFpEF.

86 patients with HF, reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and anemia in comparison with those without anemi

87 ents with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) a

88 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an independent predictor of reduced functi

89 pants with 3,180 HF events (1,252 HFpEF, 914 HFrEF, and 1,014 unclassified HF).

90 pEF, 15.5% were borderline HFpEF, 37.1% were HFrEF, and 12.8% were HF of unknown type).

91 asure C(a-v)o2 throughout exercise in HFpEF, HFrEF, and normals, we found that peak C(a-v)o2 was a ma

92 /mL was associated with an increased risk of HFrEF, and time-updated CD4 cell count less than 200 cel

93 ce to guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF are warranted.

94 ure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) are heterogenous, and our ability to identify pat

95 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as a likely catalyst to high CR enrollment and im

96 Conversely, EF increased in HFrEF (average increase 6.9% over 5 years, P<0.001).

97 art failure (HF) management in patients with HFrEF based on their ability to tolerate GDMT.

98 Rates of GDMT for HFrEF before primary prevention ICD implantation were lo

99 beta-Blockers reduce mortality in HFREF but are inadequately studied in HFPEF.

100 F was similar to that previously reported in HFrEF but more frequent with irbesartan than with placeb

101 increased risk of mortality in patients with HFrEF but not in those with HF with preserved ejection f

102 of myocardial infarction was associated with HFrEF but not with HFpEF.

103 Firing of 12/18 HFrEF (but no control) single units increased during bot

104 directed medical therapies for patients with HFrEF, but the incremental cost-effectiveness of these t

105 The increased risk of HFrEF can manifest decades earlier than would be expecte

106 In the matched HFREF cohort, beta-blockers were associated with reduced

107 currence of new-onset hospitalized HFPEF and HFREF compared with amlodipine and doxazosin.

108 Chlorthalidone reduced the risk of HFREF compared with amlodipine or doxazosin; the hazard

109 rEF, patients with HFpEF, and patients with HFrEF compared with patients with no HF and pEF.

110 creased risk of HFpEF, borderline HFpEF, and HFrEF compared with uninfected individuals.

111 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme

112 CTION trial that included 1669 patients with HFrEF, conducted between April 2003 and February 2007.

113 sified as HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (defined as current LVEF </=40%), HF with preserv

114 tolic pressure dropped more in HFpEF than in HFrEF despite similar reduction in pulmonary mean pressu

115 ohorts, 982 developed incident HFpEF and 909 HFrEF during a median follow-up of 12 years.

116 F (EF>/=50%), borderline HFpEF (EF 40%-49%), HFrEF (EF<40%), and HF of unknown type (EF missing).

117 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF </=40%).

118 with preserved (HFpEF, EF>/=50%) or reduced (HFrEF, EF<50%) ejection fraction (EF), but changes in EF

119 failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; EF <40%) is well established, but its pathogenic

120 tudy participants, classified into HFPEF and HFREF (ejection fraction >45% versus </=45%).

121 nction of race/ethnicity in outpatients with HFrEF (ejection fraction </=35%).

122 tudy planned to randomize 1100 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction </=40%), elevated natriuretic p

123 ients with HFPEF and in 20,111 patients with HFREF (ejection fraction <40%) in the same registry.

124 ll HF, HFpEF (ejection fraction >/=45%), and HFrEF (ejection fraction <45%) were assessed by using mu

125 with HF with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fractions.

126 comorbidities in patients with HFpEF versus HFrEF, emphasizing prevalence, underlying pathophysiolog

127 INTERPRETATION: Patients with diabetes and HFrEF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF who received sacubitril/va

128 patients with HFpEF compared with those with HFrEF, except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,

129 ta for the treatment of AF in the setting of HFrEF, focuses on areas where more investigation is nece

130 findings provide the first evidence in human HFrEF for an augmented excitatory cardiopulmonary-muscle

131 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist, and each complicates the cour

132 A total of 1121 patients with nonischemic HFREF from the beta-blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial

133 affect outcomes, their role in the HFpEF and HFrEF groups is not well-characterized.

134 onse to incremental exercise in HFpEF versus HFrEF has not been previously defined.

135 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been attributed, on the basis of multiunit re

136 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) have not been fully explored.

137 tion had lower risk of composite events than HFrEF (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.13

138 ar to lisinopril with regard to incidence of HFREF (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.40; P=0.596

139 were more likely to transition from HFPEF to HFREF (hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.26

140 ated with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), or

141 In 456 patients with HFrEF, HF hospitalization rates were 28% lower in the tr

142 ving reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFREF, HFPEF) because of the importance of left ventricu

143 Markov modeling to examine transitions among HFREF, HFPEF, and death.

144 ts over the study period (ptrend <0.0001 for HFrEF, HFpEF, and overall).

145 ine HFpEF (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.09-1.72), and HFrEF (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.86).

146 factors for incident hospitalized HFpEF and HFrEF in a multiracial cohort of 42 170 postmenopausal w

147 population-based estimates of patients with HFrEF in the United States, and numbers needed to treat

148 F hospitalization in patients with HRpEF and HFrEF in unadjusted analyses.

149 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in clinical trials.

150 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in women and differences by race/ethnicity are no

151 Multivariable predictors of HFPEF (versus HFREF) included elevated systolic blood pressure (odds r

152 ents with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including the influence of sex and patient effor

153 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) increased mortality, although the analysis of the

154 HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF), irrespective of the occurrence of worsening rena

155 HFrEF is characterized by greater eccentric LA remodelin

156 lysis demonstrates that medical treatment of HFrEF is highly cost-effective and may even result in co

157 ideline-directed pharmacological therapy for HFrEF is important; however, although there are various

158 ssociated with use of MRAs for patients with HFrEF is reduced by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison w

159 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is recommended before primary prevention implanta

160 ive pressure (LBPP; +10 mm Hg) in 11 treated HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction 25 +/- 6% [mea

161 d randomized clinical trial of patients with HFrEF (<40%) and iron deficiency, defined as a serum fer

162 ng to LVEF as follows: HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF<40%; n=620); HF with midrange ejection fract

163 dered, particularly in relation to potential HFrEF management.

164 In people with HFREF, mortality is increased when coronary heart diseas

165 venous sodium nitroprusside in patients with HFrEF (n = 174) and HFpEF (n = 83), determined invasivel

166 Patients with HFPEF (n=36), AS (n=67), and HFREF (n=43) were free of coronary artery disease.

167 3.9+/-0.5 mL kg(-1) min(-1), mean+/-SEM, and HFrEF, n=56, peak Vo2=12.1+/-0.5 mL kg(-1) min(-1)) and

168 Importantly, HFrEF New York Heart Association class II-III patients w

169 ency analysis involving 22,893 patients with HFREF, of whom 6081 were matched yielding 4054 treated a

170 ces morbidity and mortality in patients with HFrEF on GDMT, underscoring the important synergy of add

171 d 4.8% in patients with HFrecEF (P < .001 vs HFrEF or HFpEF).

172 , and was equally poor in men and women with HFREF or HFPEF.

173 approximately 60% lower in HFpEF compared to HFrEF (p < 0.0001).

174 all hospitalization compared with those with HFrEF (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.19, respectively)

175 ious myocardial infarction, and smoking with HFrEF (P value for each comparison </=0.02).

176 in HFPEF than in aortic stenosis (P<0.01) or HFREF (P<0.001) was associated with higher cardiomyocyte

177 h new-onset HFPEF versus 41.9% in those with HFREF (P<0.001; median follow-up, 1.74 years); and in th

178 BPP (P<0.05), and was consistently higher in HFrEF (P<0.05).

179 ates between treatment and control groups in HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40

180 erminated early, 20.0% of HFPEF and 26.0% of HFREF patients died (P=0.185; median follow-up, 1.55 yea

181 edian follow-up of 350 days, 31 HFpEF and 28 HFrEF patients died.

182 % of HFpEF patients had an EF<50% and 39% of HFrEF patients had an EF>/=50% at some point after diagn

183 ean LA pressure (20 versus 20 mm Hg; P=0.9), HFrEF patients had larger LA volumes (LA volume index 50

184 Of 2736000 patients with HFrEF patients in the United States, 2287296 (84%) were

185 rral rates was observed among both HFpEF and HFrEF patients over the study period (ptrend <0.0001 for

186 We compared HFrEF patients treated with diuretic agents alone to thr

187 duced high-energy phosphate decline than did HFrEF patients with low fatigability (New York Heart Ass

188 e a distinct clinical profile from HFpEF and HFrEF patients, with objective measures of functional ca

189 se morbidity and mortality risk in HFpEF and HFrEF patients.

190 As compared to patients with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF experience greater blood pres

191 d with patients with HFpEF and patients with HFrEF, patients with HFrecEF had fewer all-cause (adjust

192 HFmrEF resembled HFrEF rather than HFpEF with regard to both a higher pre

193 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remain at high risk for hospitalization and morta

194 F hospitalization in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, respectively.

195 FpEF risk was also more consistent than with HFrEF risk, such that increasing BMI above the normal ra

196 PA in any dose range was not associated with HFrEF risk.

197 Among MRA-treated patients with symptomatic HFrEF, severe hyperkalemia is more likely during treatme

198 reflex excitation in a greater proportion of HFrEF single units (7:18 versus 24:6; P=0.0001).

199 The HFrEF-specific model additionally included smoking, left

200 ltiunit muscle sympathetic nerve activity of HFrEF subjects (P<0.05 versus controls).

201 ndolol on both outcomes were compared across HFREF subtypes.

202 atent class models, LCM A and B, to identify HFREF subtypes.

203 data, medicines with established benefit in HFrEF such as vasodilators are frequently prescribed for

204 Some risk factors differed between HFpEF and HFrEF, supporting the notion of pathogenetic differences

205 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying det

206 Compared with patients with HFrEF, those with HFpEF were older and had higher preval

207 FpEF patients were fourfold more likely than HFrEF to experience a reduction in stroke volume with ni

208 blockers were more likely to transition from HFREF to HFPEF (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence inter

209 were more likely than men to transition from HFREF to HFPEF (hazard ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence inter

210 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to reduce morbidity and mortality; however, the u

211 The risk of HFrEF was pronounced in veterans younger than 40 years a

212 Risk factors for both HFpEF and HFrEF were as follows: older age, white race, diabetes m

213 However, in contrast to patients with HFREF where mortality increase with WRF is small, HFPEF

214 terval, 1.14-1.48; P<0.001) in patients with HFrEF, whereas no such association was found in patients

215 nd cardiac output were greater in HFpEF than HFrEF, while pulmonary artery mean and pulmonary wedge p

216 =6.5% at screening out of 8399 patients with HFrEF who were randomly assigned to treatment with sacub

217 of 2,843 patients with HFpEF and 6,599 with HFrEF with 2-year follow-up.

218 latent class analysis identifies subtypes of HFREF with implications for prognosis and response to sp

219 Among participants with HFrEF with iron deficiency, high-dose oral iron did not

220 clinical course than patients with HFpEF and HFrEF, with lower mortality, less frequent hospitalizati

221 ng patients with HFrEF and anemia (group 1), HFrEF without anemia (group 2), and chronic kidney disea

222 In HFREF, WRF induced by RAAS inhibitor therapy was associa

223 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); yet, questions have been raised with regard to t