ライフサイエンスコーパス: ejection fraction

1 ere aortic valve diseases (with preserved LV ejection fraction).

2 CRT response (>/=5% absolute increase in LV ejection fraction).

3 soactive therapies in chronic HF and reduced ejection fraction.

4 duced (classical) or preserved (paradoxical) ejection fraction.

5 not have a markedly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

6 e levels of 250 pg/mL or more, regardless of ejection fraction.

7 ic valve diseases in those with preserved LV ejection fraction.

8 he presence of underlying CKD and decreasing ejection fraction.

9 e setting of more preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

10 0 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

11 d left ventricle with preserved or increased ejection fraction.

12 ial treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

13 file of KNO3 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

14 ar size, only the 100 million dose increased ejection fraction.

15 those with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

16 f patients with heart failure have preserved ejection fraction.

17 lity of life in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

18 patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.

19 heart failure with reduced or with preserved ejection fraction.

20 were found with healthy individuals or with ejection fraction.

21 t of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

22 ith chronic stable heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

23 F hospitalization in chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction.

24 patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.

25 th chronic HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction.

26 le in the pathophysiology of HF with reduced ejection fraction.

27 measures of HF severity in HF with preserved ejection fraction.

28 wide QRS complex, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction.

29 these variables influenced infarct size and ejection fraction.

30 lobal functional status in HF with preserved ejection fraction.

31 l systemic inflammation in HF with preserved ejection fraction.

32 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

33 s in people with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.

34 that can lead to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

35 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

36 7), but not with decline in left ventricular ejection fraction.

37 y in comparison with patients with higher RV ejection fraction.

38 heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

39 ents with ischemic heart disease and reduced ejection fraction.

40 o significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction.

41 with aortic stenosis and concomitant reduced ejection fraction.

42 enhancement, and left and right ventricular ejection fractions.

43 n class I), despite similar left ventricular ejection fractions.

44 F with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fractions.

45 years, sex=0%-92% females, left ventricular ejection fraction=26%-61%).

46 nrolled (age 62+/-11 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 27+/-7%).

47 In mice given CMCs 2 days after MI, LV ejection fraction 28 days later was significantly increa

48 /VF had significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction (28.3% versus 29.5%; P<0.001) and long

49 n), aged 67.4+/-11.9 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 33.1+/-13.6% (n=137), and treated 1626

50 A by group and sex (with P < 0.05) indicated ejection fraction, 3D sphericity indices, cardiac index,

51 ts undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 +/- 17.4% vs. 55.3 +/- 11.1%; p

52 fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 45+/-6%), RV dysfunction provided an

53 s without functional decline until 16 weeks (ejection fraction, -45.6%; fractional shortening, -22.6%

54 3% men; age, 41+/-25 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 49+/-16%) with high incidence from the

55 cantly reduced LV systolic (left ventricular ejection fraction = 49+/-10% versus 58+/-10%; P<0.001) a

56 ystolic function (mean+/-SD left ventricular ejection fraction = 52+/-11% versus 63+/-8%; P<0.001) an

57 jection fraction, and fractional shortening (ejection fraction %, 54.76 +/- 0.67; fractional shorteni

58 33 +/- 5.70) compared with sham S2814A mice (ejection fraction %, 71.60 +/- 4.02; fractional shorteni

59 ejection fraction and fractional shortening (ejection fraction %, 73.06 +/- 6.31; fractional shorteni

60 27.53 +/- 0.50) compared with sham controls (ejection fraction %, 73.57 +/- 0.20; fractional shorteni

61 (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) according to history of diabetes mell

62 ions with RV mass, end-diastolic volume, and ejection fraction after control for risk factors and cop

63 s showed diastolic dysfunction and preserved ejection fraction along with signs of heart failure and

64 studied 14 737 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction and a measurement of NT-proBNP at time

65 e elamipretide in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and demonstrates that a single infusio

66 with MR imaging measures of left ventricular ejection fraction and end-systolic volume, but not with

67 iagnosing early heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and exercise-induced pulmonary hyperte

68 f left ventricular posterior wall, increased ejection fraction and fraction shortening, so as to inhi

69 ent peritonitis S2814A mice showed preserved ejection fraction and fractional shortening (ejection fr

70 Higher RV ejection fraction and greater RV mass were associated wi

71 ise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms.

72 s observed in the change in left ventricular ejection fraction and infarct size, and the duration of

73 LV structure, systolic function (based on LV ejection fraction and longitudinal strain), and diastoli

74 ith available spirometry (n=2540), higher RV ejection fraction and mass remained significantly associ

75 Despite normal left ventricular ejection fraction and serum biomarkers, patients with pr

76 rtic stenosis with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and summarizes the current registry an

77 cular plasma biomarkers in HF with preserved ejection fraction and their correlation to diastolic dys

78 Change from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction and ventricular volumes was not signif

79 on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and whether they are modifiable.

80 tion significantly improved infarct size, LV ejection fraction, and adverse LV remodeling, changes as

81 ships with age, female sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, and body mass index.

82 abradine treatment improved left ventricular ejection fraction, and clinical status and QOL showed fa

83 ate gadolinium enhancement, left ventricular ejection fraction, and especially right ventricular ejec

84 ted proinflammatory cytokine levels, reduced ejection fraction, and fractional shortening (ejection f

85 (LV end-diastolic and -systolic dimensions, ejection fraction, and fractional shortening) deteriorat

86 , which leads to a high incidence of reduced ejection fraction, and life-threatening maternal and fet

87 rial compliance, depressed right ventricular ejection fraction, and shorter life expectancy than isol

88 duration, New York Heart Association class, ejection fraction, and use of background digoxin, a netw

89 ular filtration rate, left ventricular mass, ejection fraction, and wall motion score index, ESI >3.7

90 or hospitalized heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are lacking.

91 atrial arrhythmias and low left ventricular ejection fraction, as estimated using multivariable anal

92 n fraction, and especially right ventricular ejection fraction-associated with prognosis.

93 significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up as

94 lung mass to body weight ratios and improved ejection fraction at d5 post-MI.

95 The groups had similar mean LV ejection fraction at diagnosis (29.6 with versus 27.3 wi

96 = 0.06, <0.01 and 0.08, respectively) and LV ejection fraction (AUC = 0.56, 0.69 and 0.69; all P > 0.

97 s on Activity Tolerance in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction), average daily accelerometer units (A

98 females (B=-0.38, SE=0.04), left ventricular ejection fraction (B=-0.81, SE=0.20), and body mass inde

99 stolic dysfunction was defined as reduced RV ejection fraction based on predefined cutoffs accounting

100 ts of ASV in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, but additional studies are warranted

101 ich included measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction by multigated acquisition scan along w

102 atients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction caused by Chagas' disease, with other

103 Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction caused by ischemic heart disease is as

104 Echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction change from baseline to month 12 diffe

105 with diabetes, obesity, moderately impaired ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

106 umes, and lower RV and left ventricular (LV) ejection fractions compared with controls.

107 In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, compared with lower doses, higher dos

108 rential functional outcome (left ventricular ejection fraction day 21: permanent ligation, 24.5+/-7.0

109 aminotransferase increase (three [8%]), and ejection fraction decrease (three [8%]).

110 +/- 14% vs. 61 +/- 16%; p < 0.001; n = 95), ejection fraction decreased (58 +/- 11% vs. 55 +/- 10%;

111 People with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction develop increases in left ventricular

112 ded patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction diagnosed by a cardiologist.

113 many patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction die of nonsudden causes of death.

114 , N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ejection fraction, E/E', and left ventricular mass (haza

115 tinine levels, a small (P<0.05) reduction in ejection fraction (echocardiography), and increases in t

116 heart failure (HF) and midrange or preserved ejection fraction (EF >/=40%).

117 Guidelines recommend that patients with low ejection fraction (EF) after myocardial infarction (MI)

118 ultivariate Cox regression analysis, only LV ejection fraction (EF) and LAS independently indicated t

119 Preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and reduced myocardial strain are

120 evere aortic stenosis (LGSAS) with preserved ejection fraction (EF) is incompletely understood.

121 Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to >35% occurs in many patients w

122 ents with acute HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF) to receive nesiritide or placebo

123 Mean (SD) RV ejection fraction (EF) was 44% (10%), and mean (SD) LV E

124 ticenter population of patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) who were undergoing cardiac magne

125 0.99) and non-BH SSIR (r = 0.92-0.98) for LV ejection fraction (EF), volume, and mass (P < .0001 for

126 is (AM) with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF).

127 have a poor prognosis and are categorized by ejection fraction (EF).

128 atients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF).

129 d tetralogy of Fallot and RV dysfunction (RV ejection fraction [EF] <50%) but without severe valvular

130 Global myocardial function (ejection fraction [EF] and left ventricular end-diastoli

131 al, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction, </=35%) were rando

132 ental value of considering right ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of future arrhythmi

133 mental value in addition to left ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of sudden cardiac d

134 roup had a > 10% decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from baseline to a value < 50%.

135 to 85.5 mg/d; P = .57) and left ventricular ejection fraction (from 62% to 62.3%; P = .01) were simi

136 In HFpEF, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40%, we derived propensity scores f

137 en LTPA, BMI, and risk of overall HF, HFpEF (ejection fraction >/=45%), and HFrEF (ejection fraction

138 s who were admitted for decompensated HFpEF (ejection fraction >/=50%) from January 2009 through Dece

139 Among those with a left ventricular ejection fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ventricular eje

140 in a cohort of 2622 stable patients with an ejection fraction >35% undergoing elective diagnostic ca

141 rs, 60% men) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>60%) and chronic moderate and severe

142 Until now, left ventricular ejection fraction has been used as a key criterion for s

143 Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction have impaired health-related quality o

144 ith severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction have Vmax in this range, we aimed to a

145 including incident heart failure, higher RV ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 1.16 per SD; 95% confid

146 ce of arrhythmia in animal models of reduced ejection fraction heart failure.

147 ) (EF >/=50%), heart failure with borderline ejection fraction (HFbEF) (EF 41% to 49%), and heart fai

148 spitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (EF >/=50%), heart failure wit

149 : Heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) display irregular breathing, s

150 f patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the PhosphodiesteRasE-5 Inh

151 Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common syndrome with a pr

152 Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome.

153 KEY POINTS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with disordered

154 Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common, recalcitrant to tre

155 Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) represents a major public heal

156 he evolution of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), cardiomyocyte-extracellular m

157 on is common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), its functional implications b

158 n patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

159 lure (HF) and particularly HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

160 sociation in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

161 sease (HHD) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

162 ity in HF patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively) are no

163 41% to 49%), and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF </=40%).

164 heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an independent predicto

165 illation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist, and each c

166 some patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remain at high risk for hospit

167 s with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to reduce morbidity and mortal

168 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compared with the angiotensin

169 he progression of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the pathophysiological mechan

170 ase (IHD) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; EF <40%) is well established,

171 Finally, enhanced fibrosis and worsened ejection fraction in CB2(-/-) mice were limited by peric

172 for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in either sinus rhythm or atrial fibri

173 conventional measures of LV structure and LV ejection fraction in identifying persons at risk for HF

174 nificantly decreased global left ventricular ejection fraction in parallel with increased mortality a

175 e was a greater increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients taking ivabradine than pla

176 Ejection fraction in patients with pre-LVAD ryanodine re

177 the subsequent worsening of left ventricular ejection fraction in permanent ligation mice.

178 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in randomized controlled trials compar

179 nd no significant change of left ventricular ejection fraction in the cell group.

180 hlighting the burden of HF with preserved LV ejection fraction in the elderly.

181 s associated with incident HF with preserved ejection fraction in the fully adjusted model (HR: 2.75;

182 Left ventricular ejection fraction increased (50.6% to 54.2%), and mass i

183 The ejection fraction increased in allo-hMSC patients by 8.0

184 ventricular ejection fractions (P<0.01) and ejection fraction increases during unloading (P<0.01).

185 ectively) and included left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, infarct size, and microvascular obstr

186 ithm composed of RBP4, TTR, left ventricular ejection fraction, interventricular septal diameter, mea

187 n patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is high, with one third of patients dy

188 ients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction is less well characterized.

189 Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is often preceded by diastolic dysfunc

190 LV ejection fraction is robustly preserved in at least two-

191 atients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is uncertain.

192 lly associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, isolated RV systolic dysfunction was

193 n, systolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass index, left ven

194 subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and pr

195 Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and schedule

196 In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, little is known about the characteris

197 red sixty-one patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=35% and New York Heart Association

198 randomized 2,331 ambulatory HF patients with ejection fraction </=35% to exercise training or usual c

199 ched-controls) undergoing high-risk PCI with ejection fraction </=35%.

200 anned to randomize 1100 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction </=40%), elevated natriuretic peptide

201 l groups in HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%).

202 coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%.

203 patients with systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction </=45%) and mild to moderate symptoms

204 dysfunction was defined as right ventricular ejection fraction </=45%.

205 In the derivation cohort, LV ejection fraction </=47%, infarct size >/=19%LV, and mic

206 vided them into SHIFT type (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, New York Heart Association class

207 HFpEF (ejection fraction >/=45%), and HFrEF (ejection fraction <45%) were assessed by using multivari

208 2) and LV systolic dysfunction defined as LV ejection fraction <50%.

209 Patients with PAH with lower RV ejection fraction (<41%) had a significantly reduced hea

210 STEMI and had left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction</=48%) >/=4 days poststent were eligib

211 eart failure with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction, </=35%) were randomized to either a s

212 se baseline health status, older age, higher ejection fraction, lung disease, home oxygen use, lower

213 lar (LV) systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction), LV diastolic function (early relaxat

214 death (SCD) in those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%.

215 and their associations with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure symptoms.

216 LV ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 50% (P < .001) and an

217 patients with MF and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were randomized (1:1) to receiv

218 /e') ratio, had the highest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and were predominantly male wi

219 by RV fractional area change (RV-FAC) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF), respectively.

220 rct size and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

221 eft ventricular volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

222 472 donor hearts with LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=40%) on initial TTE that res

223 idiopathic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=45%).

224 ther a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]).

225 echocardiography (baseline left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 61%; global longitudinal strai

226 failure with either a reduced or a preserved ejection fraction may also be attributable to the action

227 erangements of heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction may be mitigated by the actions of SGL

228 verse events [SAE]), and efficacy endpoints: ejection fraction, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Q

229 ardiovascular risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial scar and ischemia, rate-pr

230 new-onset heart failure and severely reduced ejection fraction not caused by valvular or ischemic hea

231 In HF with preserved ejection fraction, novel biomarkers of inflammation pred

232 Adverse LV remodeling and deteriorating LV ejection fraction occurred in control mice with large in

233 d IVA-associated cardiomyopathy as a drop in ejection fraction of >/=10% from baseline.

234 standard MR cine scans with a difference in ejection fraction of -2% +/- 3%.

235 Mean age was 67+/-11 years with an ejection fraction of 27+/-9%, and 90% were men.

236 ients (age 55 +/- 13 years, 26% female, mean ejection fraction of 30 +/- 13%) underwent left or bilat

237 simendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who were undergoing car

238 % (range, 6-54%) with mean right ventricular ejection fraction of 48+/-15% (range, 7-78%).

239 mortality in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction only (hazard ratio, 5.0; P=0.001).

240 in hCPCs derived from HF patients with lower ejection fraction or diagnosed with diabetes.

241 tted with acute heart failure, regardless of ejection fraction or disease pathogenesis.

242 timulation, cTnIS200D mice had less enhanced ejection fraction or force development versus controls,

243 toms, transaortic gradient, left ventricular ejection fraction, or procedural characteristics.

244 ed myocardium (P<0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.01).

245 change was associated with left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.045) and ventricular-vascular cou

246 on predicted high post-LVAD left ventricular ejection fractions (P<0.01) and ejection fraction increa

247 cantly different in reduced versus preserved ejection fraction patients.

248 In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, patients with diabetes mellitus have

249 irometry, lung volumes, and left ventricular ejection fraction, patients with hypocapnia had lower re

250 Contrary to traditional measures (i.e. ejection fraction, peak ), these novel measures successf

251 Despite preexisting CKD or a lower ejection fraction, pLVAD support protection against AKI

252 troponin (r=0.80) and strongly with 6-month ejection fraction (r=-0.73).

253 ean age ranged from 64 to 66 years, and mean ejection fraction ranged from 29% to 32%.

254 improvement in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction receiving aggressive vasodilator titra

255 LV ejection fraction recovered in 80% of survivors with ver

256 se LV remodeling, and marked reduction in LV ejection fraction recovery (0.2% versus 6.2%).

257 is associated with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction recovery post-transcatheter aortic val

258 PER (Cardiac Arrest Survivors with Preserved Ejection Fraction Registry) is a large registry of cardi

259 reater heart mass, 60-90% reduction in blood ejection fraction relative to control mice, and eventual

260 , be treated with beta-blockers, have higher ejection fraction, relative wall thickness and left atri

261 ty in Diastolic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) clinical trial.

262 hanisms in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction remain unknown.

263 Following RF-RDN in both strains, LV ejection fraction remained significantly above those lev

264 ective left ventricular parameter, higher RV ejection fraction remained significantly associated with

265 Left ventricular ejection fraction remains the primary risk stratificatio

266 ry artery disease, initial heart rhythm, low ejection fraction, shock at the time of admission, and i

267 Global volumes and ejection fraction showed no differences between FD quart

268 ath/reintervention was associated with lower ejection fraction, stroke volume index, and aortic valve

269 for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, such as angiotensin converting enzyme

270 ic diameter, and higher echocardiographic LV ejection fraction than controls.

271 duction disturbance and low left ventricular ejection fraction, than those with missense mutations.

272 2 subjects with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to oral KNO3 (n=9) or potassium chlori

273 AND Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction under optimal medical treatment were r

274 heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undertook, after careful treatment opt

275 Ejection fraction values should be used with investigato

276 Median left ventricle ejection fraction was 24% (10%-36%).

277 Mean ejection fraction was 31%, and 60% had moderate or great

278 years, 75% were male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32%, and peak VO2 was 13.5 mL/min/

279 d cardiomyopathy), the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32+/-12% (range, 6-54%) with mean

280 e/ethnicity, and the median left ventricular ejection fraction was 34%.

281 ociation classification was class II and the ejection fraction was 35% +/- 9%.

282 RV ejection fraction was assessed in 112 patients with PAH.

283 Although LV ejection fraction was comparable between groups, longitu

284 The left ventricular ejection fraction was consistently decreased with a medi

285 Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was preserved in 77% and 65% in Stages

286 Ejection fraction was reduced to <40% in 44% of cases.

287 ved that the improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly greater in the patie

288 Left ventricular ejection fraction was similar among groups, whereas FGR

289 At 2 years (n=85), LV ejection fraction was similar in the bone marrow mononuc

290 max >/=4 m/s) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were included.

291 nts showed that left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction were significantly more preserved in C

292 ise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction), which is a multicenter, randomized,

293 ory patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were enrolled in clinical trials,

294 ong patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery wi

295 Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing coronary artery by

296 ods can be used to document left ventricular ejection fraction with accuracy comparable with that of

297 eatures of human heart failure and preserved ejection fraction with sternum intact (n=4).

298 s with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with the sequential introduction of me

299 with HF (n=108; 53 preserved and 55 reduced ejection fraction) with PH (HF-PH; pulmonary artery syst

300 reasing age, lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, worse post-procedural mitral regurgit