ライフサイエンスコーパス: cardiac resynchronization

1 endocardial stimulation strategy to achieve cardiac resynchronization.

2 Such changes can be reversed by cardiac resynchronization.

3 ion and in whom there are no indications for cardiac resynchronization, bradycardia support or antita

4 nical trials have demonstrated a benefit for cardiac resynchronization (CRT) and implantable cardiove

5 Cardiac resynchronization (CRT) prolongs survival in pat

6 osition on outcome in patients randomized to cardiac resynchronization-defibrillation in the Multicen

7 The ICD/cardiac resynchronization defibrillator (CRT-D)-eligible

8 ated with favorable reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization-defibrillator therapy (CRT-D)

9 Ten patients with chronically implanted cardiac resynchronization devices underwent temporary LV

10 CRT among patients enrolled in the CARE-HF (Cardiac Resynchronization-Heart Failure) trial.

11 d Defibrillation in Heart Failure], CARE-HF (CArdiac REsynchronization-Heart Failure), MADIT-CRT [Mul

12 more had diabetes mellitus, kidney disease, cardiac resynchronization implantable cardioverter-defib

13 es (neurohormonal antagonists, diuretics and cardiac resynchronization in appropriate candidates).

14 The potential of cardiac resynchronization in appropriate patients requir

15 (Care-HF CArdiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure; NCT00170300)

16 The cardiac resynchronization pacemaker (CRT-P)/CRT-D-eligib

17 Patients received a cardiac-resynchronization pacemaker or implantable cardi

18 vation for heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization pacing therapy.

19 ifferent in patients with and without active cardiac resynchronization therapy (-0.7 minutes [95% con

20 d the quality of life (QOL) of patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and an implantab

21 d duration in echocardiographic responses to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and clinical out

22 linical trials have demonstrated benefit for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable

23 onship between echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and the risk of

24 dyssynchrony indices to predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) appears to vary

25 Patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are at high risk

26 of mitral regurgitation (MR) reduction with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are complex, and

27 table cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are treatments p

28 Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can improve left

29 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can improve vent

30 A prolonged PR interval is common among cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates; howe

31 ricular (LV) pacing improves the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) compared with co

32 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases mortal

33 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases mortal

34 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivered via le

35 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) demands high ene

36 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantat

37 During cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantat

38 filling to the optimal hemodynamic effect in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) during adjustmen

39 s with congestive heart failure eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) either do not re

40 e electromechanical substrates responsive to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) from unresponsiv

41 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become a suc

42 ographic dyssynchrony to predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been unclear

43 phology and duration on the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been usually

44 The use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has increased si

45 e effect of reverse remodeling on APD during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been det

46 The beneficial effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have been well e

47 hocardiographic predictors of response after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have largely inv

48 er observational study in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantable card

49 The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in clinical tria

50 icacy, safety, and long-term prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in elderly patie

51 Current guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in mild heart fa

52 V) ejection fraction and clinical outcome to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in mild heart fa

53 uency ablation improves effectiveness of the cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in nonresponders

54 Data regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with

55 r (LV) pacing site on mechanical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with

56 e conflicting data regarding the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with

57 ed controlled trial evaluating the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with

58 trial (RAFT) study demonstrated that adding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected pati

59 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a major advan

60 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a potent trea

61 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an accepted t

62 The efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated wi

63 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the only hear

64 ining the criteria for patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may improve its

65 This study reports the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on hospitalizati

66 Benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on morbidity and

67 this study was to investigate the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on right ventric

68 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) plus implantatio

69 Candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) receive either a

70 atory Heart Failure Trial) demonstrated that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced both mor

71 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces mortalit

72 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk

73 the left ventricular lead position (LVLP) on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response and cli

74 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) shortens APD com

75 of prospective randomized clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) versus implantab

76 d- 1990s, a pacemaker-based treatment termed cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was developed to

77 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to inc

78 nt studies have cast doubt on the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with defibrillat

79 table cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with pacing capa

80 ed the hypothesis that patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) would be enhance

81 se of left ventricular remodeling induced by cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), adjusting for t

82 ials have established the average benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but estimating

83 for optimal outcome in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but the influen

84 myocardial substrate of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), in particular i

85 In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), optimization of

86 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the application

87 The mechanism of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-induced proarrhy

88 ics have been shown to influence response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

89 rtality), optimal medical therapy (OMT), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

90 of >/=120 ms as a condition for prescribing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

91 ified as a predictor of positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

92 vere RV dysfunction have worse outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

93 ar (LV) dysfunction, successfully treated by cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

94 has been associated with reduced response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

95 s a useful method for predicting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

96 ntricular (LV) lead placement on outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

97 onic heart failure, but may be improved with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

98 with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

99 nts with reduced ejection fraction receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

100 oexistent atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

101 esponse (AHR) and reverse remodeling (RR) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

102 ated with worse survival in those undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

103 not demonstrate clinical improvement despite cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

104 rk ICD trials, and many patients now receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

105 are poorly represented in clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

106 t bundle branch block (LBBB) be treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); however, one-th

107 Whether adding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) to an implante

108 table cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (ICD-CRT) than in pati

109 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) and to cre

110 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) showed tha

111 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) study by Q

112 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) study.

113 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) study.

114 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) Trial to d

115 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial who

116 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial.

117 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT), patients

118 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT).

119 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT).

120 patients from the Predictors of Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (PROSPECT) study with

121 The landmark trials of biventricular pacing (cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]) typically ran f

122 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

123 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

124 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

125 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

126 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

127 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

128 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

129 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

130 ted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to Guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [TARGET] study); ISRCT

131 ry sinus lead implant or with nonresponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy and a suboptimal LV le

132 ith a new atrial lead placement as part of a cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator impl

133 e feasibility of implementation of AVNS in a cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator syst

134 did not influence the safety profile of the cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator syst

135 venous anatomy for optimal implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy and evaluation of left

136 ntly associated with long-term outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy and had additive progn

137 to address this challenge including improved cardiac resynchronization therapy and imaging technologi

138 medication for left ventricular dysfunction, cardiac resynchronization therapy and revascularization

139 Although the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy are well established i

140 Simple conceptual ideas about cardiac resynchronization therapy assume that biventricu

141 traventricular conduction delay treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy at our institution dur

142 The extent of cardiac resynchronization therapy benefit was similar fo

143 ation, including those receiving concomitant cardiac resynchronization therapy between 2006 and 2010

144 ce understanding of the working mechanism of cardiac resynchronization therapy by comparing animal ex

145 duced activation and intrinsic conduction in cardiac resynchronization therapy by evaluating the acut

146 We investigated the electric mechanisms of cardiac resynchronization therapy by performing detailed

147 In 132 cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates with left b

148 rt disease and right bundle branch block, RV cardiac resynchronization therapy carried multiple posit

149 RV cardiac resynchronization therapy carried significant de

150 c separation (MES) would improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy compared with standard

151 As utilization of cardiac resynchronization therapy continues to grow, the

152 Cardiac resynchronization therapy decreases all-cause mo

153 no survival benefit for patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D)

154 rade from VVIR stimulator (pacemaker, PM) to cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D).

155 anted implantable cardioverter defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (hazard

156 vival outcomes in patients with an ICD and a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator enrolled

157 Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator patients

158 P% independently correlate with mortality in cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator patients

159 er implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, New Yor

160 than 20% of Medicare beneficiaries receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D)

161 cited publications on predicting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy define response using

162 nsic right ventricular conduction in optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy delivery.

163 Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy depends both on dyssyn

164 patients who had an upgrade to or a revised cardiac resynchronization therapy device (18.7%; 95% con

165 ; QRS, 181+/-25 ms; all mean+/-SD) underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation.

166 an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy device, and were based

167 confirmed, AVNS software was uploaded to the cardiac resynchronization therapy device, tested, and op

168 Fewer single lead devices and more cardiac resynchronization therapy devices were used over

169 ntable cardioverter-defibrillator (including cardiac resynchronization therapy devices) and were foll

170 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, via the prema

171 ilure, and a QRS duration <120 milliseconds, cardiac resynchronization therapy did not improve clinic

172 e cardioverter defibrillator without or with cardiac resynchronization therapy enrolled in the Sensit

173 An important determinant of successful cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure is t

174 In the MADIT-CRT trial, the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy for the reduction in r

175 ia believed to define a positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy have been used in the

176 DS AND Enrolled patients had dual chamber or cardiac resynchronization therapy ICDs, history of >/=1

177 diac defibrillator implant and 37% underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy implant) were compared

178 acteristics, QLV/QRS duration (QLV ratio) at cardiac resynchronization therapy implant, and data abou

179 In contrast, women receiving a cardiac resynchronization therapy implantable cardiovert

180 e and left bundle-branch block scheduled for cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation.

181 A strategy of EG LV lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy improved patient outco

182 Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves mortality and

183 hood of a response to medical therapy and to cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure.

184 ow early after defibrillator implantation or cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with chron

185 o compare the effects of active and inactive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with sever

186 rk studies of antiarrhythmic drugs, ICD, and cardiac resynchronization therapy in the primary and sec

187 with a low risk for clinical events without cardiac resynchronization therapy intervention.

188 ne of the reasons for patient nonresponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy is a suboptimal left v

189 Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy is most favorable in p

190 ween different methods to define response to cardiac resynchronization therapy is poor 75% of the tim

191 Cardiac resynchronization therapy is widely used for the

192 dy demonstrates clinical feasibility of dual cardiac resynchronization therapy lead delivery to optim

193 Finally, cardiac resynchronization therapy may be beneficial in c

194 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy patients by QRS morpho

195 Electric left ventricular lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients was a signifi

196 ared ICD versus no ICD, whereas one compared cardiac resynchronization therapy plus a defibrillator v

197 Cardiac resynchronization therapy prolongs survival in a

198 MES-guided placement of the RV lead improves cardiac resynchronization therapy responders compared wi

199 Optimal hemodynamic cardiac resynchronization therapy response coincides wit

200 one variable that may influence cardiac resynchronization therapy response is the progra

201 been indicated as a prognostic parameter of cardiac resynchronization therapy response.

202 erstanding septal deformation and predicting cardiac resynchronization therapy response.

203 regional contractility, and thereby predict cardiac resynchronization therapy response.

204 METHODS AND Forty consecutive patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy underwent intracardiac

205 Temporary RV cardiac resynchronization therapy was applied in the pre

206 Treatment with cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a

207 Moreover, cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a

208 reduction of left ventricular volumes after cardiac resynchronization therapy were most pronounced i

209 t failure management with medical as well as cardiac resynchronization therapy when indicated is an e

210 timulation (PNS) is a common complication of cardiac resynchronization therapy when left ventricular

211 There is limited data on the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a cardioverter de

212 ardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy with cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

213 th clinical outcomes in patients who receive cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

214 y symptomatic heart failure (HF) who receive cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

215 This study aimed to evaluate the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

216 ere are limited data regarding the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

217 phology identifies patients who benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

218 omplete left-sided reverse remodeling due to cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

219 (single-chamber, 19.8%; dual-chamber, 41.3%; cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator [

220 In heart failure patients undergoing either cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator o

221 ons in India who had class I indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy with an ICD and were u

222 Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

223 on delay) did not have clinical benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

224 isk of heart failure (HF) or death comparing cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

225 Data on the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

226 r ejection fraction (LVEF) super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

227 outcome analysis that compared the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

228 Treatment with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

229 of patients with both conditions who receive cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

230 of renal function on long-term outcomes with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator amo

231 428 patients at least 65 years old receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator fro

232 We compared outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator imp

233 Large-scale data on outcomes with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator in

234 In both GFR groups, cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator was

235 predicted outcomes; however, no benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator was

236 older patients with heart failure receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator, di

237 enal function, derive long-term benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator, wi

238 sk was further attenuated in the subgroup of cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardi

239 205 patients with heart failure referred for cardiac resynchronization therapy with QRS >/=120 ms and

240 he hypothesis that an incremental benefit to cardiac resynchronization therapy would be gained by ech

241 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) data.

242 g implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy) for patients with hea

243 ay optimization of biventricular pacemakers (cardiac resynchronization therapy) may maximize hemodyna

244 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study patients with l

245 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study, the echocardio

246 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study.

247 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study.

248 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study.

249 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study.

250 Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) to evaluate whether t

251 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial.

252 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) with speckle-tracking

253 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy), 801 patients with an

254 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

255 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

256 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

257 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

258 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

259 ization included impaired ejection fraction, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and institutional pra

260 of device monitoring, predicting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy, and the use of pacema

261 implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy, consistent with evolv

262 evascularization, sex, diabetes, age, use of cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardiover

263 ticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation, cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardiover

264 After cardiac resynchronization therapy, increasing R amplitud

265 ioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy, the subcutaneous ICD

266 Several palliative options such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, tricuspid valve repai

267 Patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy-D were enrolled.

268 eductions in left atrial volume (LAV) with a cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D)

269 antable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D)

270 ator Registry, we defined a cohort of 45,392 cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D)

271 at women have better outcomes than men after cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D)

272 omized controlled trials have shown that the cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves

273 men have been under-represented in trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-D)

274 Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are ind

275 One main challenge related to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators is the

276 CD) display a relatively limited response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

277 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy.

278 coronary sinus is the standard approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

279 patients with AF to maximize the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy.

280 r septal puncture is a feasible approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

281 e improvement in LV pump function induced by cardiac resynchronization therapy.

282 tivation, which may predict poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

283 zations and has implications for delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy.

284 te changes in RV function after temporary RV cardiac resynchronization therapy.

285 used for improved selection of patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

286 that this lead location should be avoided in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

287 e role of intrinsic conduction in optimizing cardiac resynchronization therapy.

288 y in selected patients who do not respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

289 electrocardiographic selection criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

290 a strong predictor of short-term response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

291 ant (20 patients), for stabilization pending cardiac resynchronization therapy/percutaneous coronary

292 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; NCT00180271).

293 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; NCT00180271).

294 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; NCT00180271).

295 ted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to Guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy]), the LV lead was pos

296 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy], REVERSE [Resynchroni

297 Cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidit

298 DIT-CRT) showed that early intervention with cardiac-resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

299 urces on receipt of a heart failure therapy, cardiac-resynchronization therapy with defibrillation (C

300 Cardiac resynchronization using pacing devices is a stan