ライフサイエンスコーパス: LVEF

1 LVEF and ISZ were assessed 4 months post-MI.

2 LVEF change >/=5 U was associated with a modest increase

3 LVEF change as a predictor of outcomes was affected by s

4 LVEF declines and recovery were associated primarily wit

5 LVEF over time in subjects with the GNB3 TT genotype was

6 LVEF recovered in the majority of the patients who devel

7 LVEF was assessed at the sites and recorded on case repo

8 .29), LVEF 60% to 69%; and 0.22 (0.18-0.26), LVEF>/=70%.

9 29-0.41), LVEF 50% to 59%; 0.26 (0.23-0.29), LVEF 60% to 69%; and 0.22 (0.18-0.26), LVEF>/=70%.

10 function are more prevalent than reduced 3D LVEF and are associated with treatment exposure.

11 Only 5.8% of survivors had abnormal 3D LVEFs (<50%).

12 8; 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.03) but not abnormal 3D LVEFs (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.53).

13 Preserved (>40%) LVEF at inception was present in 816 of 2166 (37.7%) pat

14 2166 (16.2%) had previously reduced (</=40%) LVEF and were classified as having HFrecEF, whereas 466

15 .41 (0.35-0.47), LVEF<50%; 0.35 (0.29-0.41), LVEF 50% to 59%; 0.26 (0.23-0.29), LVEF 60% to 69%; and

16 confidence interval) were 0.41 (0.35-0.47), LVEF<50%; 0.35 (0.29-0.41), LVEF 50% to 59%; 0.26 (0.23-

17 The cohort was 30% black, age 30+6, LVEF 0.34+0.10 at entry 31+25 days postpartum.

18 ons were found for stroke volume (r = 0.74), LVEF (r = 0.81), and thickness (r = 0.78).

19 In the intention-to-treat analysis, absolute LVEF improved by 18 +/- 13% in the CA group compared wit

20 t predicted greater improvements in absolute LVEF (10.7%; p = 0.0069) and normalization at 6 months (

21 , resulting in a decreased but more accurate LVEF (all P < 0.001).

22 improved in patients recovering SR from AF (LVEF, 7.0+/-10%, P=0.005; PSCS, -3.5+/-4.3%, P=0.001) bu

23 tion (EF) >30% (mean 41+/-7) and 32 (35%) an LVEF</=30% (mean 20+/-5).

24 athy with an LVEF <0.35, and 72% achieved an LVEF >/=0.50.

25 patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and an LVEF >/=40% at increased risk of SCD and low risk of non

26 referrals with dilated cardiomyopathy and an LVEF >/=40% to our center between January 2000 and Decem

27 Among surgical subjects, 11 patients had an LVEF improvement of >10%, whereas only 6 improved by >10

28 ate that 70% to 80% of such patients have an LVEF >35%.

29 The likelihood of having an LVEF >50% on follow-up increased by 24% for each point i

30 Patients with an LVEF >35% also have low competing risks of death from no

31 had persistent severe cardiomyopathy with an LVEF <0.35, and 72% achieved an LVEF >/=0.50.

32 In patients with an LVEF of 30% or less, QRS duration of 120 milliseconds or

33 o estimate the independent effect of AVG and LVEF on outcomes.

34 dence of effect modification between AVG and LVEF with respect to either endpoint.

35 nd is associated with anthracycline dose and LVEF at the end of treatment.

36 ts with simultaneous anterior infarction and LVEF less than 50% are at highest risk.

37 ied 1,318 patients with >/=3+ primary MR and LVEF >/=60% using echocardiography at rest; they were ev

38 None of the patients with NFM and LVEF >/=55% at discharge had a significant decrease in L

39 ed left ventricular end diastolic volume and LVEF.

40 LV recovery was defined as LVEF of >/=50% at 1 year, persistent severe LV dysfuncti

41 1 year, persistent severe LV dysfunction as LVEF of </=35%, and major events as death, transplant, o

42 t cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess LVEF and late gadolinium enhancement, indicative of vent

43 Four patients (2.7%) had asymptomatic LVEF declines (>/= 10 percentage points from baseline to

44 festing as grade 3 or 4 LVSD or asymptomatic LVEF decline, were low.

45 CI, 1.9%-5.4%) had significant asymptomatic LVEF decline, 11 of whom completed study treatment.

46 function (LVSD) and significant asymptomatic LVEF decline, as defined by our study, were reported.

47 ost-partum, whereas 91% with both a baseline LVEF >/=0.30 and an LVEDD <6.0 cm recovered (p < 0.00001

48 No subjects with both a baseline LVEF <0.30 and an LVEDD >/=6.0 cm recovered by 1 year po

49 breast cancer 3 cm, or smaller, and baseline LVEF of greater than or equal to 50% occurred from Octob

50 Mean baseline LVEF was 36+/-9%.

51 the effect of AVG on outcomes is modified by LVEF.

52 In case of cardiotoxicity (LVEF decrease >10 absolute points, and <50%), heart fail

53 At multivariable analysis, end-chemotherapy LVEF (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-

54 At multivariable analysis, CMR-LVEF </=35% (hazard ratio=2.18 [1.3-3.8]) and the presen

55 A model based on CMR-LVEF </=35% or CMR-LVEF </=35% plus late gadolinium enha

56 A model based on CMR-LVEF </=35% or CMR-LVEF </=35% plus late gadolinium enhancement detection s

57 ction fraction (HFrecEF) (defined as current LVEF >40% but any previously documented LVEF </=40%).

58 jection fraction (HFrEF) (defined as current LVEF </=40%), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF

59 with LVEF </=40% at baseline who had 30-day LVEF data.

60 By 30 days LVEF increased >17% compared with baseline in the early

61 Early after ablation (1-4 days), LVEF and PSCS improved in patients recovering SR from AF

62 redicts the likelihood of having a decreased LVEF during follow-up, whereas a normal GLS predicts the

63 01]), resulting in a significantly decreased LVEF: 70.3% +/- 9.1% vs. 75.2% +/- 8.1% vs. 77.8% +/- 9.

64 he conventional camera, leading to decreased LVEF in healthy subjects.

65 sk of all outcomes increased with decreasing LVEF.

66 without history of coronary artery disease, LVEF remained associated with mortality (HR, 0.90 per 10

67 rent LVEF >40% but any previously documented LVEF </=40%).

68 These patients comprised the improved donor LVEF group.

69 cores, 461 transplants in the improved-donor LVEF group were matched to 461 transplants in the normal

70 tched to 461 transplants in the normal-donor LVEF group.

71 ients with varying levels of LV dysfunction (LVEF <30% vs. 30% to 50% vs. >50%) and AVG (<40 mm Hg vs

72 Early LVEF recovery is associated with improved clinical outco

73 Early LVEF recovery occurred in 62% of patients, generally bef

74 Early LVEF recovery was defined as an absolute increase of >/=

75 dence, predictors, and significance of early LVEF recovery after CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve

76 1.96) were identified as predictors of early LVEF recovery.

77 IV HF with reduced EF [left ventricular EF (LVEF) </=40%] were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan 97

78 .006), echocardiographic (P = 0.03) and ERNA LVEF (P = 0.0007), LVS (P = 0.004), LVE (P = 0.006), LV

79 Serial evaluation for LVEF change predicts both survival and heart failure hos

80 and thickness only and an overestimation for LVEF at lower values.

81 heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (LVEF </=45%) treated for predominant central sleep apnoe

82 fraction and no recovered ejection fraction (LVEF was consistent between 40% and 55%; n=107); HF with

83 ath were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) </=45% (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.48; confidence interv

84 e with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%.

85 diomyopathy women with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) <45% within 13 weeks after delivery.

86 sity and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% who underwent bariatric surgery at a tertiary

87 d higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (48.3% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.019) on day 5 CMR.

88 y of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and clinical outcomes in the multicenter IPAC (Inv

89 ons with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure symptoms.

90 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and infarct size (ISZ) are key predictors of long-

91 mes were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV)

92 12-month left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) r

93 ced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) and low aortic valve gradient (AVG) are associated

94 reserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the value of aortic valve (AV) surgery on long

95 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

96 ptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decline.

97 nificant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) drop was associated with markers' increases.

98 ion mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in those with LV dysfunction (increased f

99 anges in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a large cohort of patients with FM compared wit

100 LV ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 50% (P < .001) and anterior infarction (

101 ement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) over time.

102 reserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) previously had reduced LVEF but experienced improv

103 overy of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remain at risk for future deterioration of LVEF.

104 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was assessed by echocardiography at entry, 6 and 1

105 (CE) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were evaluated in 1,944 women who proceeded to pos

106 olume, and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) were evaluated.

107 d normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were randomized (1:1) to receive or not receive AC

108 highest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and were predominantly male with the lowest rate

109 nal (3D) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal and circumferential myocardia

110 sured by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is associated with clinical outcomes.

111 nce imaging quantified LV ejection fraction (LVEF), peak systolic circumferential strain (PSCS), and

112 Volume, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), regional wall thickening, and motion (17-segment

113 ea change (RV-FAC) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF), respectively.

114 rding to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

115 tain stroke volume and LV ejection fraction (LVEF).

116 f CAD or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

117 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

118 reserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

119 umes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

120 ement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

121 F with recovered midrange ejection fraction (LVEF, 40%-55% but previous LVEF<40%; n=170); and HF with

122 on (left ventricular [LV] ejection fraction [LVEF] >/=45%) enrolled in the Treatment of Preserved Car

123 th LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=40%) on initial TTE that resolved (LVEF >/=50%)

124 yopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=45%).

125 n = 525; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] of 33 +/- 9%; 66 +/- 12 years of age; 77% males) u

126 reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]).

127 baseline left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 61%; global longitudinal strain, -21.5%), cardiac

128 aseline, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], and proportion of Cheyne-Stokes Respiration [CSR]

129 nts had left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs) <30%, 8 had LVEFs 30%-50%, and 11 required hospit

130 crease >5 absolute points and >50%) or full (LVEF increase to the baseline value).

131 In subjects with the TT genotype, LVEF at entry was lower (TT=0.31+0.09; CT+CC=0.35+0.09,

132 a, 63 (75%) had LV recovery and 11 (13%) had LVEF of </=35% or a major event (4 LV assist devices and

133 Among 5,034 subjects, 15% had LVEF <50%, 77% had multivessel CAD, and 28% had proximal

134 n improved LVEF during follow-up and 25% had LVEF improved to >35%.

135 cular ejection fractions (LVEFs) <30%, 8 had LVEFs 30%-50%, and 11 required hospitalization for suspe

136 h HF and reduced EF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF, LVEF was a significant and independent predictor of all

137 ; n=170); and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF; LVEF>55%; n=47).

138 VEF as follows: HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF<40%; n=620); HF with midrange ejection fraction and

139 he CTO PCI strategy had significantly higher LVEF compared with patients randomized to the no-CTO PCI

140 However, it is unclear how LVEF improvement affects subsequent risk for mortality a

141 However, LVEF and PSCS did not improve further (both P=NS) and re

142 tients with FM have a more severely impaired LVEF at admission that, despite steep improvement during

143 evention ICD patients, 40.0% had an improved LVEF during follow-up and 25% had LVEF improved to >35%.

144 x models comparing patients with an improved LVEF with those with an unchanged LVEF, the hazard ratio

145 ransendocardial stem cell injection improved LVEF (n=65, 9.1% increase; 95% confidence interval, 3.7

146 een recipients of donor hearts with improved LVEF and recipients of donor hearts with initially norma

147 ansendocardial stem cell injection improving LVEF (n=46, 7.0% increase; 95% confidence interval, 2.7

148 ver the follow-up duration (1-year change in LVEF -3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.4% to -2.8%

149 Change in LVEF and LVESV over time did not differ significantly am

150 The mean change in LVEF between baseline and follow-up for all patients was

151 s with 16 clinical parameters plus change in LVEF for predicting 4 major clinical end points, includi

152 he incremental prognostic value of change in LVEF has not been well characterized.

153 The primary endpoint was change in LVEF on repeat CMR at 6 months.

154 Although change in LVEF over time should reflect response to therapy and cl

155 ts with at least 1 follow-up LVEF, change in LVEF was the second most significant predictor (behind b

156 n these parameters and subsequent changes in LVEF and heart failure symptoms.

157 stem cell approach showed similar changes in LVEF and LVESV versus control subjects, with a small but

158 Similar results for survival and changes in LVEF in FM versus NFM were observed in the subgroup (n=1

159 ine echocardiogram in relation to changes in LVEF on a follow-up echocardiogram.

160 Changes in LVEF were inversely associated with all-cause mortality

161 e not associated with significant changes in LVEF.

162 ry analyses, trastuzumab-mediated decline in LVEF was attenuated in bisoprolol-treated patients (-1 +

163 b resulted in modest, persistent declines in LVEF at 3 years.

164 d against cancer therapy-related declines in LVEF; however, trastuzumab-mediated left ventricular rem

165 67 (P<0.001) as a predictor of a decrease in LVEF >5% during follow-up.

166 3-fold greater odds of a 5-year decrease in LVEF (odds ratio [OR]: 3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI

167 % at discharge had a significant decrease in LVEF at follow-up.

168 than 10% (n = 21) and, for LV, a decrease in LVEF greater than 7% (n = 23).

169 x, there was a sustained, modest decrease in LVEF over the follow-up duration (1-year change in LVEF

170 cy of PVCs was associated with a decrease in LVEF, an increase in incident CHF, and increased mortali

171 The difference in LVEF at 12 months by genotype was most pronounced in bla

172 ty (adjusted hazard ratio for improvement in LVEF by >/=5 U responder versus nonresponder [95% confid

173 Despite greater improvement in LVEF during hospitalization in FM versus NFM forms (medi

174 up, 25% of patients showed an improvement in LVEF to >35% and their risk of appropriate shock decreas

175 urgery was associated with an improvement in LVEF, although the magnitude of change was on the cusp o

176 F but experienced improvement or recovery in LVEF.

177 Each 5-point reduction in LVEF was associated with a 9% increased risk of cardiova

178 An additive of higher death risk included LVEF </=45% and RV systolic dysfunction rather than neit

179 se in mortality was observed with increasing LVEF, P<0.0001; 5-year mortality estimates (95% confiden

180 aortic valve area, and stroke volume index, LVEF was independently predictive of mortality (HR, 0.88

181 0% (one of 50, 2%); (c) anterior infarction, LVEF 50% or greater (two of 92, 2%); and (d) anterior in

182 two of 92, 2%); and (d) anterior infarction, LVEF less than 50% (23 of 115, 20%) (P < .001 for the tr

183 was as follows: (a) nonanterior infarction, LVEF 50% or greater (one of 135, 1%); (b) nonanterior in

184 one of 135, 1%); (b) nonanterior infarction, LVEF less than 50% (one of 50, 2%); (c) anterior infarct

185 l controls were matched on age, sex, initial LVEF, and interval between echocardiograms.

186 e (mean difference: 34+/-20.5 mL), and lower LVEF (mean difference: -4.9+/-10%) as compared to TTE (P

187 eft ventricle end-systolic volume, and lower LVEF with both imaging modalities and higher late gadoli

188 risk score accounted only for LEF and lower LVEF.

189 seline was an independent indicator of lower LVEF at follow-up (coefficient [SE], -0.16 [0.07]; P = .

190 e GNB3 TT genotype was associated with lower LVEF at 6 and 12 months in women with PPCM, and this was

191 est LV mass index and volumes and the lowest LVEF and strain, were predominantly male, and shared sim

192 compared with donor hearts with normal LVEF (LVEF >/=55%) on the initial TTE for recipient mortality,

193 se were independent predictors of maintained LVEF on multivariable analysis.

194 Mean LVEF, mitral effective regurgitant orifice, indexed LV e

195 Mean STS score was 5.5% +/- 8%, and mean LVEF was 57 +/- 4%, whereas 1,228 patients (87%) were as

196 At 4 months, mean LVEF did not differ between the 2 groups (44.1 +/- 12.2%

197 The mean LVEF in PARADIGM-HF, reported by sites, was 29.5 (interq

198 locker Evaluation of Survival Trial measured LVEF by radionuclide ventriculography at baseline and at

199 Median LVEF at baseline was 65%; 12 weeks, 64%; 6 months, 64%;

200 omen; 178 [59%] with type 2 diabetes; median LVEF of 25% [IQR, 19%-33%]; median N-terminal pro-B-type

201 ents (145 women, median age 50 years, median LVEF 50%, 25.3% with LGE) followed for a median of 4.6 y

202 identify novel biomarkers predicting post-MI LVEF and ISZ, we performed metabolic profiling in the GI

203 triglyceride concentrations predict post-MI LVEF and ISZ.

204 Within the midrange LVEF HF population, recovered systolic function is a mar

205 Patients with HF with midrange LVEF demonstrate a distinct clinical profile from HFpEF

206 prognosis of patients with HF with midrange LVEF of 40% to 55%, and the impact of recovered systolic

207 ype was most pronounced in blacks (12 months LVEF for GNB3 TT=0.39+0.16; versus CT+CC=0.53+0.09, P=0.

208 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.89; p = 0.002) and normal LVEF (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.87; p = 0.0012).

209 pients of donor hearts with initially normal LVEF.

210 may be concealed behind preoperative normal LVEF and LV end-systolic diameter.

211 were compared with donor hearts with normal LVEF (LVEF >/=55%) on the initial TTE for recipient mort

212 n the MRC group (p < 0.0001) and normalized (LVEF >/=50%) in 58% versus 9% (p = 0.0002).

213 e laboratory echocardiographic assessment of LVEF at baseline, post procedure, discharge, 30 days, 6

214 In humans, changes of LVEF paralleled these results, with transendocardial ste

215 over time and correlated with the degree of LVEF dysfunction.

216 ) remain at risk for future deterioration of LVEF.

217 36 to 1.69; p <0.001), whereas the effect of LVEF was no longer significant.

218 of this study was to evaluate the impact of LVEF and AVG on clinical outcomes after TAVR and to dete

219 We investigated the importance of LVEF on long-term outcome after aortic valve replacement

220 reduction in infarct size and improvement of LVEF in all animal models.

221 reduction in infarct size and improvement of LVEF in all animal models.

222 reduction in infarct size and improvement of LVEF, which has important implications for the design of

223 y and clinical course, serial measurement of LVEF is inconsistently performed in observational settin

224 ersions were the most sensitive predictor of LVEF dysfunction.

225 d an overall benefit for CTO PCI in terms of LVEF or LVEDV.

226 from cardiotoxicity was defined as partial (LVEF increase >5 absolute points and >50%) or full (LVEF

227 Patient LVEF was assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1

228 Patient LVEF was assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 1

229 There was a mean pre- to postoperative LVEF improvement of +5.1% +/-8.3 (P=0.0005) for surgical

230 ded, the best correlation with postoperative LVEF was found with LVEI (r=-0.40; P<0.0001), even in pa

231 otein (HDL) triglycerides (HDL-TG) predicted LVEF (beta=1.90 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82 to 2

232 lts were found in patients with preoperative LVEF>/=60% (P=0.049 and P=0.016, respectively).

233 <0.0001), even in patients with preoperative LVEF>/=60% (r=-0.46; P<0.0001).

234 Among patients with MF and preserved LVEF (42 [55%]), those randomized (21 patients in each a

235 s with grade III or greater AR and preserved LVEF demonstrated significantly improved long-term survi

236 ts with significant primary MR and preserved LVEF, baseline RVSP is independently associated with lon

237 In patients with AM and preserved LVEF, LGE in the midwall layer of the AS myocardial segm

238 n age 35 +/- 15 years) with AM and preserved LVEF.

239 ious LVEF<40%; n=170); and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF; LVEF>55%; n=47).

240 nd LGE in the prognosis of AM with preserved LVEF.

241 (HFpEF) (defined as current and all previous LVEF reports >40%), and HF with recovered ejection fract

242 jection fraction (LVEF, 40%-55% but previous LVEF<40%; n=170); and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF; LVE

243 In patients with a recovered LVEF, an abnormal GLS predicts the likelihood of having

244 Patients with recovered LVEF had a wide range of GLS.

245 tively identified 96 patients with a reduced LVEF <50% (screening echocardiogram), whose LVEF had inc

246 s with established heart failure and reduced LVEF who were recently hospitalized.

247 tients with worsening chronic HF and reduced LVEF, compared with placebo, vericiguat did not have a s

248 hospitalized with heart failure and reduced LVEF, the use of liraglutide did not lead to greater pos

249 ction fraction (LVEF) previously had reduced LVEF but experienced improvement or recovery in LVEF.

250 tween CCC groups with a preserved or reduced LVEF.

251 466 of 2166 (21.5%) had no previous reduced LVEF and were classified as having HFpEF.

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

253 Nearly two thirds of patients with reduced LVEF will have a marked early improvement after transcat

254 e of prognosis in heart failure with reduced LVEF.

255 Age of 60 years or older, registration LVEF less than 65%, and use of antihypertensive medicati

256 We related LVEF to study outcomes and assessed the effectiveness of

257 e cohort study of 538 patients with repeated LVEF assessments after ICD implantation for primary prev

258 [LVEF] </=40%) on initial TTE that resolved (LVEF >/=50%) during donor management on a subsequent TTE

259 nfirmed by a cardiologist, and a significant LVEF drop, or death of definite or probable cardiac caus

260 ere associated with an increased significant LVEF drop risk (univariate analysis: hazard ratio, 4.52;

261 eline were seen in patients with significant LVEF drop.

262 cy of 0.65 (P=0.002) for predicting a stable LVEF (-5% to 5%) on follow-up.

263 normal GLS predicts the likelihood of stable LVEF during recovery.

264 in patients compared with control subjects (LVEF, 61% [interquartile range (IQR), 52%-65%] versus 71

265 ly associated with concurrent and subsequent LVEF declines and recovery across therapies.

266 gnificant asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic LVEF drop.

267 t infarcts (day 7 CMR) and highest long-term LVEF (day 45 CMR).

268 affected by sex and race, with evidence that LVEF improvement is associated with less survival benefi

269 s, and 1 year, and our findings suggest that LVEF monitoring during trastuzumab therapy without anthr

270 The LVEF at study entry was 0.35 +/- 0.10, 0.51 +/- 0.11 at

271 The LVEF was assessed by echocardiography at baseline and at

272 acubitril/valsartan was effective across the LVEF spectrum, with no evidence of heterogeneity, when m

273 ctiveness of sacubitril/valsartan across the LVEF spectrum.

274 , the smaller the infarct and the higher the LVEF.

275 death and HF hospitalization throughout the LVEF spectrum.

276 LS on the baseline study correlated with the LVEF at the time of follow-up (r=0.33; P<0.001).

277 tudy population was categorized according to LVEF as follows: HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF<40%;

278 s (>/= 10 percentage points from baseline to LVEF < 50%), leading to T-DM1 discontinuation in one pat

279 CABG), on long-term outcomes with respect to LVEF and number of diseased vessels, including proximal

280 in the prediction of MACE as compared to TTE-LVEF resulting in net reclassification improvement of 0.

281 n improved LVEF with those with an unchanged LVEF, the hazard ratios were 0.33 (95% confidence interv

282 mong 2484 patients with at least 1 follow-up LVEF, change in LVEF was the second most significant pre

283 Duchenne or Becker muscular dystrophy whose LVEF was preserved and MF was present as determined on C

284 LVEF <50% (screening echocardiogram), whose LVEF had increased by at least 10% and normalized (>50%)

285 sion models to define their association with LVEF decline and recovery.

286 Cardiac marker assessments were coupled with LVEF measurements at different time points for 533 patie

287 Of the patients with LVEF <50%, 6 had normalization of systolic function afte

288 ; P<0.0001), the proportion of patients with LVEF <55% at last follow-up was higher in FM versus NFM

289 with patients with LVEF>/=60%, patients with LVEF 50% to 59% had increased mortality (hazard ratio [H

290 In patients with LVEF less than or equal to 30%, use of adaptive servoven

291 Compared with patients with LVEF>/=60%, patients with LVEF 50% to 59% had increased

292 currence and cardiac death for patients with LVEF>30% was 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70-90) c

293 In the subgroup of patients with LVEF</=30%, the survival free from VT recurrence and car

294 Patients were clinically stable with LVEF less than 45% within 4 weeks of a worsening chronic

295 ared with 42% (95% CI, 33-51) for those with LVEF</=30% (P=0.001).

296 CoreValve Extreme and High-Risk trials with LVEF </=40% at baseline who had 30-day LVEF data.

297 sion for worsening heart failure varied with LVEF and CSR.

298 sion for worsening heart failure varied with LVEF and that the risk attributed to adaptive servoventi

299 6 months were associated with 1- and 2-year LVEF changes.

300 Over a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, LVEF decreased in 13.0%, improved in 40.0%, and was unch