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

1 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

2 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

3 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

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

5 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

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

7 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 rately predicts LV reverse remodeling during cardiac resynchronization therapy.

20 electrocardiographic selection criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

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

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

23 one antagonist (60.3% versus 34.5%, +25.1%), cardiac resynchronization therapy (66.3% versus 37.2%, +

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33 atients who will not receive the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy and whose clinical con

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

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

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

37 Simple conceptual ideas about cardiac resynchronization therapy assume that biventricu

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

39 The extent of cardiac resynchronization therapy benefit was similar fo

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

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

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

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

44 In 132 cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates with left b

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

46 RV cardiac resynchronization therapy carried significant de

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

57 The utility and feasibility of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are now being cr

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

59 Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can improve left

60 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can improve vent

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

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

63 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases mortal

64 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases mortal

65 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivered via le

66 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) demands high ene

67 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantat

68 During cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantat

69 study was to define the extent and nature of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device usage out

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

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

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

73 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become a suc

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

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

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

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

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

79 Clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have enrolled a

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

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

82 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves LV stru

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

93 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a major advan

94 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a potent trea

95 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an accepted t

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

97 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the first cli

98 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the only hear

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

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

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

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

103 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) plus implantatio

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

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

106 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces mortalit

107 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk

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

109 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) shortens APD com

110 lar contraction (DHF) and its restoration by cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using a canine t

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

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

113 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to inc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

121 In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), optimization of

122 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the application

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

144 Cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidit

145 This trial was designed to determine whether cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricul

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

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

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

149 Cardiac resynchronization therapy decreases all-cause mo

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

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

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

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

154 Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator patients

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

156 - 7%) who met enrollment criteria received a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, and 980

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

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

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

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

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

162 ilure, atrial fibrillation/flutter, having a cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator device,

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

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

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

166 Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are ind

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

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

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

170 Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy depends both on dyssyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

181 Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure with

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

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

184 implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy have also been reporte

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

195 Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves mortality and

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

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

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

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

200 After cardiac resynchronization therapy, increasing R amplitud

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

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

203 Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy is most favorable in p

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

205 Cardiac resynchronization therapy is used in patients wi

206 Cardiac resynchronization therapy is widely used for the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

227 Finally, cardiac resynchronization therapy may be beneficial in c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

236 Cardiac resynchronization therapy prolongs survival in a

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

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

239 Optimal hemodynamic cardiac resynchronization therapy response coincides wit

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

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

242 erstanding septal deformation and predicting cardiac resynchronization therapy response.

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

244 Cardiac resynchronization therapy results in an improvem

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

246 comparison to other AV delay methods used in cardiac resynchronization therapy (SMART-AV) trial prosp

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

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

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

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

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

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

253 ous electrode configurations of an implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

261 Temporary RV cardiac resynchronization therapy was applied in the pre

262 Treatment with cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a

263 Moreover, cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a

264 ead ECGs during left bundle branch block and cardiac resynchronization therapy were analyzed in 202 c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

284 Treatment with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

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

286 Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

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

288 428 patients at least 65 years old receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator fro

289 We compared outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator imp

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

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

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

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

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

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

296 205 patients with heart failure referred for cardiac resynchronization therapy with QRS >/=120 ms and

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

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

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

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