コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 f pump support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy).
2 eutic intention (bridge to transplant versus destination therapy).
3 ts who are not deemed transplant candidates (destination therapy).
4 ates in patients receiving these devices for destination therapy.
5 have been used and allow the possibility of destination therapy.
6 te II implantation, with 62% LVADs placed as destination therapy.
7 bridge to transplant, bridge to recovery or destination therapy.
8 nclude use of high-risk transplant lists and destination therapy.
9 e to transplantation, also called chronic or destination therapy.
10 idge to transplantation, may also be used as destination therapy.
11 n in the patients who received the device as destination therapy.
12 ts to provide support until transplant or as destination therapy.
13 ed for the patients who received the pump as destination therapy.
14 er LVAD and is associated with older age and destination therapy.
15 as a bridge to cardiac transplantation or as destination therapy.
16 s are now being used as a permanent form of "destination" therapy.
17 p = 0.001), had MCS more often implanted as destination therapy (33% vs. 14% vs. 22%, p = 0.03), req
19 t devices are also being expanded to include destination therapy and alternatives to cardiac transpla
20 ics encouraged inclusion of all indications (destination therapy and bridge to transplant) and preven
21 end-stage heart disease as either bridge or destination therapy, and have significantly improved the
22 schemic cardiomyopathy, LVAD implantation as destination therapy, and increased baseline body mass in
23 rdiotomy shock, "bridge to transplant," and "destination therapy." At present, device development, cl
24 IIB/IV patients meeting indications for LVAD destination therapy but not dependent on intravenous ino
25 ridge to transplantation (BTT) (n = 281) and destination therapy (DT) (n = 374) trials were analyzed.
26 f left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination therapy (DT) can provide survival superior t
32 ability of left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT-LVAD) to prolong survival for ma
37 ss associated with continuous-flow LVADs for destination therapy has improved significantly relative
38 splantation and, more recently, as a form of destination therapy has provided a great opportunity to
39 orporation, Pleasanton, California) LVAD for destination therapy has provided an attractive option fo
40 ernative to heart transplantation, so-called Destination Therapy, has become a promising new option f
41 ence interval 1.46-3.44; P(trend)<0.001) and destination therapy (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence
42 pproved for use as a bridge-to-transplant or destination therapy in patients who have irreversible en
43 tance devices are now used increasingly as a destination therapy in patients with advanced heart fail
44 , both as a bridge to transplantation and as destination therapy in those who are ineligible for card
46 entification of a dedicated caregiver before destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT L
48 ge to transplantation and more recently as a destination therapy, left ventricular assist device supp
53 HMII bridge to transplantation (n = 405) and destination therapy (n = 551) clinical trials were retro
56 ntinuous-flow LVADs as bridge to transplant, destination therapy, or bridge to decision from January
57 e, either as a bridge to transplantation, as destination therapy, or in some patients, as a bridge to
58 is study sought to assess the utility of the Destination Therapy Risk Score (DTRS) in patients with c
59 ival Score, Seattle Heart Failure Model, and Destination Therapy Risk Score may provide guidance for
60 rability and complications, the potential of Destination Therapy should continue to expand through th
61 ailure and the expanded indication use (i.e. destination therapy), the overall number of implanted pa
63 into the HMII bridge to transplantation and destination therapy trials (N = 1,122) were randomly div
65 effectiveness of continuous-flow devices for destination therapy versus optimal medical management in
66 oncerning survival and quality of life since destination therapy was first introduced 10 years ago.
67 ear survival rate for patients supported for destination therapy with a continuous-flow LVAD is 74%,
WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。