ライフサイエンスコーパス: biventricular pacing

1 whether these patients benefit from upfront biventricular pacing.

2 luence of ectopic beats on the percentage of biventricular pacing.

3 gned to standard right ventricular pacing or biventricular pacing.

4 ds high energy utilization due to continuous biventricular pacing.

5 te adequate LV lead positions and continuous biventricular pacing.

6 magnitude of benefit was observed with >92% biventricular pacing.

7 ation or atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing.

8 with no other minimally invasive options for biventricular pacing.

9 region yields similar or better responses to biventricular pacing.

10 e halfway value of VAQRS during simultaneous biventricular pacing (53% of cases) was associated with

11 r rate limit, percent atrial pacing, percent biventricular pacing, and implant year.

12 advances over the past year related to (1). biventricular pacing as a treatment for dilated myopathy

13 re, with native conduction (LBBB) and during biventricular pacing at atrioventricular (AV) delays of

14 Biventricular pacing at AV delays of 120 ms generated a

15 -Opt, against LBBB as reference; BiV-Opt and biventricular pacing at AV delays of 120 ms were not sig

16 Biventricular pacing at AV delays of 40 ms was no differ

17 y were performed without pacing, with LV and biventricular pacing at optimal atrioventricular delay.

18 In comparison with LBBB, biventricular pacing at separately preidentified hemodyn

19 followed by 3 weeks of resynchronization by biventricular pacing at the same pacing rate (CRT).

20 eeks (DHF) or 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks of biventricular pacing at the same rate (CRT).

21 ted in sinus rhythm and during atrial sensed biventricular pacing (BiV).

22 al fibrillation (AF), assessed its impact on biventricular pacing (BIVP%), and determined whether AF

23 quences of left ventricular pacing (LVP) and biventricular pacing (BiVP).

24 This study assessed the effects of biventricular pacing (BVP) on ventricular function, func

25 We hypothesized that biventricular pacing, by restoring left ventricular (LV)

26 tion of the left ventricle, as occurs during biventricular pacing, can facilitate the development of

27 The landmark trials of biventricular pacing (cardiac resynchronization therapy

28 e mechanical benefits and in fine-tuning the biventricular pacing configuration and protocol, little

29 vements in interventricular synchrony during biventricular pacing correlate with acute improvements i

30 We sought to test the postulate that biventricular pacing diminishes the need for appropriate

31 proarrhythmia; P<0.01), requiring temporary biventricular pacing discontinuation in half of cases.

32 one quarter of mild HF patients eligible for biventricular pacing experience S-LVRR.

33 iac structure and function are improved with biventricular pacing for patients with atrioventricular

34 , as compared with 160 of 349 (45.8%) in the biventricular-pacing group.

35 The percentage of patients with biventricular pacing >/=92% was similar in both groups (

36 Patients randomly assigned to biventricular pacing had a significantly lower incidence

37 Biventricular pacing has been introduced to resynchroniz

38 influence of ectopic beats on the success of biventricular pacing has not been well established.

39 When biventricular pacing improves LV contraction and relaxat

40 ardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing improves symptoms and functional ca

41 Biventricular pacing in heart failure (HF) improves surv

42 However, little is known about biventricular pacing in HF patients with atrioventricula

43 erior to atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure who

44 elay achieves similar or greater benefits to biventricular pacing in such patients.

45 nce for optimizing outcomes related to RV or biventricular pacing in the pacemaker and ICD population

46 diac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through biventricular pacing is an effective treatment for heart

47 Biventricular pacing is being combined with ICD function

48 However, the appropriate amount of biventricular pacing is ill-defined.

49 A high percentage of biventricular pacing is required for optimal outcome in

50 nderwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing, lead dislodgment was found in one

51 activation of the LV wall, as occurs during biventricular pacing, leads to a prominent increase in Q

52 rnate RV pacing sites, minimizing RV pacing, biventricular pacing, left ventricular (LV) pacing, and

53 Biventricular pacing, left ventricular assist devices, a

54 dramatically increase the probability of low biventricular pacing (<97%), with reduced CRT efficacy b

55 (4) Biventricular pacing may be beneficial in some patients

56 ort this observation, and raise concern that biventricular pacing may be proarrhythmic in select case

57 single-site RV or left ventricular pacing or biventricular pacing may be superior to RVA pacing.

58 Biventricular pacing may promote a more coordinated vent

59 We evaluated whether biventricular pacing might reduce mortality, morbidity,

60 Except for resynchronization with biventricular pacing, no medical therapies have been sho

61 nderwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing; none were lost to follow-up at 6 m

62 oventricular block and systolic dysfunction, biventricular pacing not only reduces the risk of mortal

63 a molecular pathway for regulation of INa by biventricular pacing of the failing heart.

64 m data are needed to determine the effect of biventricular pacing on survival.

65 The primary performance endpoint, biventricular pacing on the 12-lead electrocardiogram at

66 Biventricular pacing (or cardiac resynchronization thera

67 ilure and suggested that atrial-synchronized biventricular pacing, or cardiac resynchronization thera

68 nderwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing; P<0.001), a longer 6-minute-walk d

69 The probability of subsequent low biventricular pacing percentage (<97%) was increased 3-f

70 ased ectopic beats reduce the chance of high biventricular pacing percentage and are associated with

71 -defibrillator device with data available on biventricular pacing percentage and pre-implantation 24-

72 remained paroxysmal in 69.5%, did not reduce biventricular pacing percentage.

73 ization achieved through atrial-synchronized biventricular pacing produces clinical benefits in patie

74 Subjects were grouped based on percent biventricular pacing quartiles with the use of Kaplan-Me

75 overter-defibrillator therapy alone (without biventricular pacing) results in a significant reduction

76 Lifespan gain from biventricular pacing rises nonlinearly with time.

77 Patients with biventricular pacing showed greater improvement in NYHA

78 Biventricular pacing significantly reduced LV volume ind

79 der sinus rhythm or with left ventricular or biventricular pacing/stimulation at the same heart rate.

80 Left ventricular or biventricular pacing/stimulation can acutely improve sys

81 lar resynchronization by left ventricular or biventricular pacing/stimulation in DCM patients with le

82 D device as part of the VENTAK CHF/CONTAK CD Biventricular Pacing study were analyzed.

83 in the Ventak CHF (congestive heart failure) biventricular pacing study.

84 lar tachyarrhythmia induction as a result of biventricular pacing support this observation, and raise

85 ned in 50 patients implanted with the InSync biventricular pacing system who were randomized to thera

86 res including more sophisticated sensors and biventricular pacing systems.

87 is analysis was to determine the appropriate biventricular pacing target in patients with heart failu

88 Biventricular pacing to improve ventricular contractilit

89 harmacologic therapy (OPT) alone or OPT with biventricular pacing to provide cardiac resynchronizatio

90 We conducted a meta-analysis of biventricular pacing trials to calculate lifespan gained

91 Biventricular pacing using right ventricular (RV) and le

92 his at-risk patient population by performing biventricular pacing via a wireless left ventricular (LV

93 permanent atrial fibrillation; particularly, biventricular pacing was superior compared with conventi

94 Biventricular pacing was superior to conventional right

95 We hypothesized that biventricular pacing would improve synchrony of right ve

96 cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing would reduce the risk of death or h

97 Biventricular pacing yielded less change (+12.8+/-9.3% i