ライフサイエンスコーパス: aortic pressure

1 yperaemia, or with hyperaemia plus increased aortic pressure.

2 raemia, and during hyperaemia plus increased aortic pressure.

3 and ascending aortic rupture with increased aortic pressure.

4 infusion to induce a progressive increase in aortic pressure.

5 sponse to pressure overload without reducing aortic pressure.

6 pecific Nox4 knockout mice exhibited similar aortic pressures.

7 hifted the pressure-response curve to higher aortic pressures.

8 r - 3.4 to 124.0 + or - 6.7 mm Hg), and mean aortic pressure (111 + or - 3.1 to 98 + or - 4.3 mm Hg)

9 istance (22 +/- 13% vs. 24 +/- 11%, p = NS), aortic pressure (2 +/- 9% vs. 0 +/- 6%, p = NS) and pulm

10 gh-fidelity catheter recordings of ascending aortic pressure and blood flow velocity at rest and with

11 Aortic pressure and coronary perfusion pressure with HB-

12 ferences in aging on in vivo measurements of aortic pressure and diameter and on extracellular matrix

13 Aortic pressure and flow were measured simultaneously us

14 We measured proximal aortic pressure and flow, forward pressure wave amplitud

15 se wave analysis were used to derive central aortic pressure and hemodynamic indices at baseline and

16 creased arterial stiffness, augments central aortic pressure and increases left ventricular (LV) afte

17 ntaneous wave-free ratio and distal pressure/aortic pressure and not significantly affected by contra

18 Aortic pressures and dimensions in seven dogs were deter

19 se wave analysis were used to derive central aortic pressures and hemodynamic indexes on repeated vis

20 se-wave analysis were used to derive central aortic pressures and hemodynamic indices at repeated vis

21 e substantially different effects on central aortic pressures and hemodynamics despite a similar impa

22 om a beneficial effect of statins on central aortic pressures and hemodynamics.

23 erindopril-based therapy) on derived central aortic pressures and hemodynamics.

24 Left ventricular and aortic pressures and linear flow velocity were measured

25 rugs could have different effects on central aortic pressures and thus cardiovascular outcome despite

26 Central aortic pressures and waveform convey important informati

27 Basal heart rate, aortic pressure, and ejection fraction were comparable i

28 f coronary blood flow (CBF), ventricular and aortic pressure, and ventricular diameter, with catheter

29 classical semi-spherical vortex model and an aortic pressure-area compliance constitutive relationshi

30 stantaneous wave-free ratio, distal pressure/aortic pressure at rest, and FFR were measured in 763 pa

31 A 33% decline in aortic pressure augmentation in Ex2 (P<0.0001) coincided

32 Consideration of wave reflection and aortic pressure augmentation may explain the lack of ris

33 closing dynamics, left ventricular pressure, aortic pressure, blood flow rate, and aortic orifice are

34 coronary occlusive pressure divided by mean aortic pressure both subtracted by mean central venous p

35 coronary occlusive pressure divided by mean aortic pressure, both subtracted by central venous press

36 These agents also increased mean aortic pressure but did not alter the pressure gradient

37 Invasive central aortic pressure by micromanometer and radial pressure by

38 Central aortic pressures can be accurately estimated from radial

39 Mean aortic pressure, cardiac output, total blood loss, and t

40 Aortic pressures, central venous pressures, and heart ra

41 occlusive pressure-central venous pressure)/(aortic pressure-central venous pressure); pressure value

42 Atorvastatin did not influence central aortic pressures (change in aortic systolic blood pressu

43 c catheterization to measure ventricular and aortic pressure, coronary blood flow, arterial-coronary

44 Aortic pressure-dimension (chamber) stiffness constants

45 week 8) with LV pressure-volume analysis and aortic pressure-dimension and pressure-flow assessment o

46 atio of resting distal coronary pressure and aortic pressure during the complete duration of diastole

47 dual-sensor micromanometer to measure LV and aortic pressures during sinus rhythm and LV free-wall pa

48 Similar to changes in aortic pressure, EECP resulted in a dramatic increase in

49 Aortic pressure, electrocardiogram, left ventricular pre

50 Both were associated with increases in aortic pressure from 20 +/- 3 to 33 +/- 8 mm Hg (p <.001

51 nitro-L-arginine methyl ester increased mean aortic pressure from a mean +/- SEM of 92 +/- 4 to 114 +

52 Residual mean aortic pressure gradient (11.6 +/- 4.9 vs. 10.9 +/- 4.9,

53 When exercise-induced changes in mean aortic pressure gradient were added to the multivariable

54 Mean aortic pressure improved from postinfarction levels but

55 1alpha mRNA related in the left ventricle to aortic pressure, in the left atrium to left atrial press

56 In 10 animals, aortic pressure increased from 52 mmHg +/- 24 before thr

57 At baseline and then during EECP, central aortic pressure, intracoronary pressure, and intracorona

58 rtensive" efficacy (failure to lower central aortic pressure), lack of effect on regression of target

59 These effects were preceded by increased aortic pressure (Langendorff constant flow) or decreased

60 luation) study showed less effective central aortic pressure lowering with atenolol-based therapy ver

61 linical outcomes, and differences in central aortic pressures may be a potential mechanism to explain

62 ac arrest in this study was defined by intra-aortic pressure monitoring that is not feasible in clini

63 turn of spontaneous circulation with an mean aortic pressure of 60 mm Hg (8.0 kPa) after intra-aortic

64 pontaneous circulation with a sustained mean aortic pressure of 60 mm Hg (8.0 kPa) was achieved in si

65 eturn of spontaneous circulation with a mean aortic pressure of 60 mm Hg (8.0 kPa) was achieved.

66 on rates were impaired without any change in aortic pressure or ventricular hypertrophy.

67 .002), but had no effect on heart rate, mean aortic pressure, or right atrial pressure.

68 l cardiac structure and function, but during aortic pressure overload, these mice display rapid onset

69 cardium, epinephrine significantly increased aortic pressure (p < .05) and improved defibrillation ra

70 0.001), cardiac output (p = 0.044), and mean aortic pressure (p < 0.001).

71 Significant reductions in afterload (aortic pressure, P=0.030) and myocardial oxygen demand w

72 tio of distal coronary pressure (Pd) to mean aortic pressure (Pa), and fractional flow reserve (FFR)

73 lar resistance (PVRI) without affecting mean aortic pressure (Pao) or indexed systemic vascular resis

74 Aortic pressure pulsatility significantly decreased in s

75 Distal coronary to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) and instantaneous wave-fre

76 The median right ventricle:aortic pressure ratio after repair was 0.35.

77 The right ventricular/aortic pressure ratio decreased from 0.6 +/- 0.2 to 0.4

78 The median RV:aortic pressure ratio decreased from 1.0 at baseline to

79 At the initial PA intervention, median RV:aortic pressure ratio decreased from 1.00 to 0.88 (media

80 Patients with a higher preintervention RV:aortic pressure ratio had a greater reduction (P<0.001).

81 of Fallot, Genesis stent, higher prestent RV:aortic pressure ratio, and stent malposition associated

82 on and surgical relief in selected cases, RV:aortic pressure ratios decrease substantially and most p

83 hanism accounting for less effective central aortic pressure reduction per unit change in brachial pr

84 rimental measurements included instantaneous aortic pressure (subclavian pulse tracings) and flow (ao

85 brachial artery pressure as a surrogate for aortic pressure--the pressure the heart sees.

86 inflow and left atrial pressures, ascending aortic pressure, thermodilution cardiac output and Doppl

87 Correlation with invasive hemodynamic aortic pressure tracings was performed.

88 Central aortic pressure was measured, stored to computer memory,

89 essel using a dual sensor wire while central aortic pressure was recorded using a second wire.

90 Mean aortic pressure was similar between groups.

91 with improvement on therapy displayed higher aortic pressure wave pulsatility (central pulse pressure

92 Increased aortic pressure wave pulsatility and greater decrease in

93 rterial stiffness derived from the ascending aortic pressure waveform.

94 ecorded by applanation tonometry and central aortic pressure waveforms generated using a mathematical

95 Aortic pressure waveforms were derived from a generalize

96 Decreases in aortic pressure were produced at baseline and after nitr

97 onary pressure and flow velocity and central aortic pressure were recorded with sensor wires.

98 Carotid and aortic pressures were also controlled and vascular resis

99 quently, drug-related differences in central aortic pressures were markedly attenuated after adjustme

100 -week recovery, ECG and left ventricular and aortic pressures were recorded in conscious, sedated ani

101 elayed in AS, consistent with a delayed peak aortic pressure, which was partially restored after TAVI

102 We simultaneously measured dorsal aortic pressure with a servonull system and flow velocit

103 there were substantial reductions in central aortic pressures with the amlodipine regimen (central ao