ライフサイエンスコーパス: end-systolic

1 /- 0.12 to 1.73 mL/kg +/- 0.10, P < .01) and end-systolic (1.33 mL/kg +/- 0.07 to 0.92 mL/kg +/- 0.08

2 astolic (175 mL +/- 35 to 201 mL +/- 40) and end-systolic (100 mL +/- 24 to 115 mL +/- 29) volumes (P

3 mm Hg, p = 0.01), increased left ventricular end-systolic (51 +/- 13 vs 50 +/- 14 mm, p = 0.05) and e

4 The mean left ventricular end systolic and end diastolic volumes did not differ be

5 had more significant improvements in both LV end-systolic and -diastolic volume indexes.

6 From standard cine and CP-BOLD images, end-systolic and end-diastolic myocardium was segmented.

7 l (3D) whole-heart data sets acquired during end-systolic and end-diastolic phases during one free-br

8 Both end-systolic and end-diastolic RV volumes increased in S

9 c-to-diastolic ratio (S/D), quotient of mean end-systolic and end-diastolic signal intensities (on CP

10 Subsequently, RV end-systolic and end-diastolic volume increased more in

11 End-systolic and end-diastolic volumes were calculated u

12 LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes were defined with

13 End-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, ejection fractio

14 left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, infarct size, an

15 meters (infarct wall thickening fraction, LV end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, LV ejection frac

16 Systolic function (EF, end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes, stroke volumes)

17 Both the LV and RV end-systolic and LV end-diastolic volumes were increased

18 c analyses were performed to compare stroke, end-systolic, and end-diastolic volumes for the left ven

19 sed by echocardiographic end-diastolic area, end-systolic area, fractional area change, tricuspid ann

20 ted with a significant increase in dp/dtmax, end-systolic blood pressure, and systemic vascular resis

21 consistent with increased end-diastolic and end-systolic chamber elastance, as well as diastolic dys

22 ions were also associated with reductions in end-systolic (decrease of 15 mL at >500 ng/mL, p=0.0026)

23 m [95% CI: -4.09 to -0.90; p = 0.002] and LV end systolic diameter -2.09 mm [95% CI: -4.11 to -0.06 p

24 BSO also reduced wall thickness, enhanced end systolic diameter, depressed fraction shortening, pe

25 soon as ejection fraction (EF) </=60% or LV end-systolic diameter >/=40 mm.

26 nal hazard model identified left ventricular end-systolic diameter >61 mm as an independent predictor

27 Those with left ventricular end-systolic diameter >61 mm had a 51% 3-year incidence

28 th CRT and a defibrillator, left ventricular end-systolic diameter >61 mm is a powerful predictor of

29 Among patients with left ventricular end-systolic diameter </=61 mm, multivariate predictors

30 2 +/- 5.5% to 32.7 +/- 6.7 %, p < 0.001), LV end-systolic diameter (5.93 +/- 0.55 cm to 5.62 +/- 0.32

31 al effective regurgitant orifice, indexed LV end-systolic diameter (LVESD), and right ventricular sys

32 3.6 mL (0.5-6.7, p=0.0217), left ventricular end-systolic diameter -1.8 mm (-2.9 to -0.6, p=0.0027),

33 Higher LV end-systolic diameter and symptoms correlate with less L

34 ; independent correlates included smaller LV end-systolic diameter in patients with aortic stenosis a

35 iameter of 59.0 +/- 9.3 mm, left ventricular end-systolic diameter of 42.0 +/- 10.7 mm, and mV(O(2))

36 ameter was 48.6 +/- 5.7 mm, left ventricular end-systolic diameter was 32.3 +/- 5.7 mm, mV(O(2)) was

37 ealed behind preoperative normal LVEF and LV end-systolic diameter.

38 EI) using following formula: LVEI=indexed LV end-systolic diameter/LV outflow tract time-velocity int

39 Measurements of left ventricular end-systolic/diastolic volumes revealed that the least a

40 ed that treatment prevented left ventricular end-systolic dilatation, increased ejection fraction, an

41 or when ejection fraction approaches 0.60 or end systolic dimension approaches 40 mm.

42 50%, LV end-diastolic dimension </=70 mm, LV end-systolic dimension </=50 mm or </=25 mm/m(2)) in who

43 tomatic, and 93 patients (7%) had indexed LV end-systolic dimension (iLVESD) >/=2.5 cm/m(2).

44 ssessed by LV end-diastolic dimension and LV end-systolic dimension (LVESd).

45 ejection time (p < 0.0001) and decreases in end-systolic dimension (p < 0.05).

46 T exposure was negatively associated with LV end-systolic dimension and heart rate (z-score differenc

47 lack of severe left ventricular dilatation (end-systolic dimension index <29 mm/m(2)), and lack of e

48 igated whether an internally scaled index of end-systolic dimension is incremental to well-validated

49 z scores; all P = .001) and an increased LV end-systolic dimension z score (all P < .03).

50 n left ventricular fractional shortening and end-systolic dimension Z scores were significantly worse

51 et all these criteria: left ventricular (LV) end-systolic dimension z-score >2.6, age at diagnosis yo

52 eart failure, and increased left ventricular end-systolic dimension zscore at diagnosis were independ

53 V-GLS to STS, resting RVSP, left ventricular end-systolic dimension, and mitral effective regurgitant

54 Mean LV ejection fraction, indexed LV end-systolic dimension, resting right ventricular systol

55 change in pressure over time (dp/dt) and the end-systolic dimension-pressure relation.

56 al shortening: -0.82, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.33; end-systolic dimension: 0.57, 0.21-0.93) but not for tho

57 Right ventricular (RV) end-systolic dimensions provide information on both size

58 Left ventricular (LV) thickness, LV end-systolic dimensions, and LV mass were reduced, where

59 entricular mass as well as end-diastolic and end-systolic dimensions.

60 -independent parameter of systolic function, end systolic elastance (Ees), requires invasive catheter

61 LV systolic properties, namely EF, end systolic elastance, stroke work, and preload recruit

62 Effective arterial elastance (Ea) end-systolic elastance (Ees) and ventricular-arterial co

63 Ea, total arterial compliance (TAC), and end-systolic elastance (Ees) were calculated at baseline

64 V instantaneous peak pressure (dP/dtmax) and end-systolic elastance (Ees) were preserved in both grou

65 cts had adequate paired data to determine LV end-systolic elastance (Ees), end-diastolic elastance (E

66 and tonometry: left ventricular volumes and end-systolic elastance (Ees), peripheral resistance, art

67 ssociated with prognosis in systolic HF, but end-systolic elastance (Eessb) is not.

68 ffective arterial elastance/left ventricular end-systolic elastance [Ea/Ees]) after adjustment for po

69 hout PH (n=7) to derive contractile indexes (end-systolic elastance [Ees] and preload recruitable str

70 CXL-1020 increased contractility assessed by end-systolic elastance and provided venoarterial dilatio

71 ced septal-lateral annular diameter, but not end-systolic elastance or regional myocardial function.

72 cular coupling was worse in Cpc-PH patients (end-systolic elastance to effective arterial elastance [

73 -PAH patients did not augment contractility (end-systolic elastance) whereas IPAH did (P<0.001).

74 LV dP/dtmax, preload adjusted maximal power, end-systolic elastance, preload recruitable stroke work)

75 sed compliance of myocytes, but it depresses end-systolic elastance; under conditions of exercise, th

76 End-systolic fiber stress was elevated in 45 of 46 subje

77 ndocardial surfaces at the end-diastolic and end-systolic frames for rest-stress studies were registe

78 d left ventricular end-systolic volume at an end-systolic left ventricular pressure of 100 mm Hg.

79 llagen decreased by 30% and left ventricular end-systolic (LVES) dimension increased despite normal L

80 egurgitation (MR) when left ventricular (LV) end-systolic (LVES) dimension is >40 mm, LV ejection fra

81 0.0001) decreased, whereas left ventricular end-systolic (LVES) volume index was 60% above normal pr

82 terload as expressed by the left ventricular end-systolic meridional wall stress (35 +/- 13 to 18 +/-

83 nction (median: 4.8 versus 1.8 mm; P<0.001), end-systolic mitral annular diameters (median: 41.2 vers

84 cant differences were recognized for stroke, end-systolic, or end-diastolic volumes in either the LV

85 r pressure (dp/dtmax ), and the slope of the end-systolic P-V relationship (ESPVR), suggesting that a

86 volume relationship during systole (Sslope); end-systolic peak (peak ); and diastolic uncoupling (sys

87 essure exerted by the contracting ventricle (end systolic pressure) to its volume (end systolic volum

88 pressure, end-diastolic pressure and volume, end-systolic pressure and volume, and ratio of systole t

89 123 +/- 18 mm Hg; both P=0.02), and central end-systolic pressure trended lower (116 +/- 18 to 111 +

90 The slope of the end-systolic pressure volume relationship (i.e., contrac

91 lic volume [EDV]); contractile function (the end-systolic pressure volume relationship slope [Eessb]

92 end-diastolic LV volume, augmentation index, end-systolic pressure, and cardiovascular disease risk f

93 easurements revealed complete restoration of end-systolic pressure, ejection fraction, end-systolic v

94 t effect on systolic function, improving the end-systolic pressure-volume relation (+0.98 +/- 0.41 mm

95 development (p = 0.002), and slope of the LV end-systolic pressure-volume relationship (p = 0.04).

96 derzone (P<0.01), and a steeper slope of the end-systolic pressure-volume relationship (P=0.01).

97 Ischemia shifted the end-systolic pressure-volume relationship and cardiac ou

98 7% (p < .05), and significantly improved the end-systolic pressure-volume relationship and preload re

99 terval, 13-24]% versus 12 [10-14]%, P=0.008; end-systolic pressure-volume relationship slope 2.4 [1.9

100 Hg [IQR, 21-46 mm Hg]; P=0.005), whereas the end-systolic pressure-volume relationship was not signif

101 with the long-term changes (12 months) in LV end-systolic (r=0.11, P=0.31) or end-diastolic (r=0.10,

102 accompanying echocardiographic criteria: (1) end-systolic ratio of noncompacted layer to compacted la

103 RV end-systolic remodeling index (RVESRI) was defined by la

104 diomyocytes exhibit higher end-diastolic and end-systolic stiffness than +/+ cardiomyocytes, whereas

105 se remodeling was defined as reduction in LV end systolic volume >/=15% at 6 months.

106 /-7.32 mL; P=0.03), a trend toward decreased end systolic volume (142.4+/-16.5 versus 107.6+/-7.4 mL;

107 r left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end systolic volume (ESV), and end diastolic volume (EDV

108 end diastolic volume (r(2)=0.69, P=0.04) and end systolic volume (r(2)=0.83, P=0.01).

109 s (end diastolic volume 142+/-43 to 91+/-18, end systolic volume 73+/-33 to 43+/-14 mL/m(2), P<0.0001

110 positively associated with end diastolic and end systolic volume and inversely related to ejection fr

111 The LV end systolic volume decreased from 186 +/- 68 ml to 157

112 FF (P=0.06) and significant reductions in LV end systolic volume index (-6.7 +/- 21.1 versus 2.1 +/-

113 ation, and smaller baseline left ventricular end systolic volume index also were also associated with

114 LV end systolic volume index is a significant predictor of

115 LV end systolic volume index was also evaluated as a predic

116 LV end systolic volume index was predictive of mortality/mo

117 e clinical composite score, left ventricular end systolic volume index, 6-minute walk time, and quali

118 up to 1% for every 1 mL/m(2) increase in LV end systolic volume index.

119 Resting end systolic volume was 129+/-60 mL at rest and increase

120 ricle (end systolic pressure) to its volume (end systolic volume).

121 We estimated 95th weighted percentiles of LV end systolic volume, LV end diastolic volume, relative w

122 nal treatment in end diastolic volume (EDV), end systolic volume, stroke volume (SV), cardiac output

123 onse to CRT was defined as a reduction in LV end-systolic volume >/=15% at 6 months.

124 as defined as a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume >15% at follow-up echocardiography c

125 uction delay, contraction asynchrony, and LV end-systolic volume ("reverse remodeling").

126 .01 mm/mL; P<0.01), a lower left ventricular end-systolic volume (-0.01 mm/mL; P=0.01), and lower lef

127 r end-diastolic volume (-18 mL; P=0.009) and end-systolic volume (-14 mL; P=0.005) occurred at end in

128 ociated with a reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-24.8 +/- 3.0 ml vs. -8.8 +/- 3.9 m

129 ith controls, evoked by a preservation of LV end-systolic volume (-4.05 mL; 95% CI, -6.91 to -1.18; P

130 e interval, -3.55 to -0.95; P=0.0007) and LV end-systolic volume (-6.37 mL; 95% confidence interval,

131 nce interval, -5.47 to -2.59; P<0.00001), LV end-systolic volume (-8.91 mL; 95% confidence interval,

132 0.83 cm to 6.51 +/- 0.91 cm, p < 0.001), LV end-systolic volume (178 +/- 72 to 145 +/- 23 ml, p < 0.

133 -16 mL/m(2); P<0.05), and greater indexed LV end-systolic volume (41+/-11 versus 31+/-7 and 30+/-8 mL

134 .4 vs. 94.1 +/- 21.1 mmHg, P < 0.001) and LV end-systolic volume (44.2 +/- 7.8 vs. 50.5 +/- 10.8 ml,

135 rease of indexed RV end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume (98 ml/m(2) to 87 ml/m(2) and 50 ml/

136 Allopurinol also reduced LV end-systolic volume (allopurinol -2.81 +/- 7.8 mls vs. p

137 eta=0.01/mL; P<0.0001), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (beta=0.01/mL; P<0.001) were associa

138 s associated with significant decrease in LV end-systolic volume (DeltaLV end-systolic volume -28.2+/

139 tion (LVEF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and end-systolic volume (ESV) are predictors of mortality in

140 . 1.8 +/- 7.9; P < 0.05), difference between end-systolic volume (ESV) at rest and stress (DeltaESV[s

141 action (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and end-systolic volume (ESV) were calculated using 2 commer

142 agreement of LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and EF measured by 3DE and 2D

143 by measuring LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and ejection fraction (EF).

144 rence limits for end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction, and region

145 End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), ejection

146 n fraction (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume(SV), and myocar

147 efined as reduction in both left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left atrial volume (LAV)

148 mary endpoint was change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) on cardiac magnetic resonanc

149 jection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) relative to baseline measure

150 , LV function was more dynamic, with reduced end-systolic volume (mean +/- 95% confidence interval ej

151 erence: 43+/-22.5 mL), higher left ventricle end-systolic volume (mean difference: 34+/-20.5 mL), and

152 tion fraction (P < 0.0001) and a decrease in end-systolic volume (P = 0.0002) were observed, which al

153 tion, while the RVPAS group had increased RV end-systolic volume (p = 0.004) and decreased right vent

154 4 +/- 7% (P<0.001) because of an increase in end-systolic volume (P<0.05).

155 ex, and body surface area, right ventricular end-systolic volume (P=0.004) strongly predicted mortali

156 n fraction (P<0.001) because of an increased end-systolic volume (P=0.015).

157 relations were found for LV mass (r = 0.95), end-systolic volume (r = 0.93), and end-diastolic volume

158 nd related to the change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (r=-0.53; P<0.001).

159 decrease in LV end-systolic volume (DeltaLV end-systolic volume -28.2+/-38.9 versus -4.9+/-33.8 mL,

160 versus 67 +/- 1% in controls, P < 0.001; LV end-systolic volume 19 +/- 4 ml/m(2) versus 25 +/- 1 ml/

161 olic volume 106 +/- 15 versus 110 +/- 22 mL; end-systolic volume 35 +/- 6 versus 36 +/- 6 mL) or incr

162 eductions, respectively, in left ventricular end-systolic volume [LVESV] at 1 year compared with base

163 [milliliters]/body surface area [BSA](1.3), end-systolic volume [milliliters]/BSA(1.3), and mass [gr

164 In control animals, LV end-systolic volume and end-diastolic volume increased f

165 stress, reduced LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume and increase in LV ejection fraction

166 no significant difference in measurements of end-systolic volume and mass.

167 In multivariate analysis, LV end-systolic volume and mitral annulus area most strongl

168 c infarction resulted in less increase in LV end-systolic volume and preservation of LV ejection frac

169 ined as >/=15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 1-year of follow-up) among 612 pa

170 iles 1 and 3) for change in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months for the SmartDelay, echo

171 ifference in improvement in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months was observed between the

172 those demonstrating a >/=15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months.

173 efined as >15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months.

174 rimary endpoint was a >/=15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months.

175 and > or = 15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months.

176 The effect of cooling on left ventricular end-systolic volume at a pressure of 100 mm Hg (hyperthe

177 ar contractility increased (left ventricular end-systolic volume at a pressure of 100 mm Hg: 74 +/- 5

178 assessed by the calculated left ventricular end-systolic volume at an end-systolic left ventricular

179 ocardiography compared with left ventricular end-systolic volume at baseline.

180 Adjustment for 3-month DeltaLV end-systolic volume attenuated the association between Q

181 emonstrated a reduction in end-diastolic and end-systolic volume by echocardiography, activation of t

182 9% of 426 patients, whereas left ventricular end-systolic volume decreased > or = 15% in 56% of 286 p

183 increase at post (39+/-2%; P<0.05), whereas end-systolic volume decreased.

184 noncontrast 3D EF, end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume had significantly lower temporal var

185 ic volume improved from 172 ml to 140 ml and end-systolic volume improved from 82 ml to 73 ml (both p

186 o 143 +/- 53 ml (n = 203; p < 0.0001) and LV end-systolic volume improved from 87 +/- 47 ml to 79 +/-

187 e right atrial volume than right ventricular end-systolic volume in AF-TR (P<0.001).

188 In addition, LV end-systolic volume increased by 108% in controls versus

189 the entire cohort identified preoperative RV end-systolic volume index <90 mL/m(2) and QRS duration <

190 -26.2 versus -7.4 mL/m(2)), left ventricular end-systolic volume index (-28.7 versus -9.1 mL/m(2)), l

191 up; p = 0.0012), as did the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (48.4 +/- 19.7 ml/m(2) vs. 43.

192 3-vessel CAD, EF below the median (27%), and end-systolic volume index (ESVI) above the median (79 ml

193 controls with 3D wall motion tracking for RV end-systolic volume index (ESVi), RV ejection fraction (

194 scularization outcomes could be modulated by end-systolic volume index (ESVi).

195 e primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as asse

196 fined as a decrease in left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) of more than 10% from

197 gnificant difference in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) or survival after 1 y

198 ngitudinal data analysis of left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) was performed to adju

199 Temporal changes in MR severity and LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) were evaluated by lin

200 e primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), a measure of left ve

201 gnificant difference in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), survival, or adverse

202 3-mL/m(2) mean reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume index (P<0.0001), whereas non-LBBB p

203 s associated with increased left ventricular end-systolic volume index (r=0.62, P<0.01), left atrial

204 ctors of death (P < 0.01): right ventricular end-systolic volume index adjusted for age and sex, and

205 3 mL/m2 decrease (least square mean+/-SE) in end-systolic volume index and a 6+/-1% increase in left

206 nary anatomy, and left ventricular function, end-systolic volume index and B-type natriuretic peptide

207 ivariable regression model, left ventricular end-systolic volume index and left atrial volume index w

208 Right ventricular end-systolic volume index and left ventricular strain-ra

209 ences in mean LV end-diastolic volume index, end-systolic volume index and LVEF between diabetic pati

210 but not when combined with right ventricular end-systolic volume index and strain-rate e'-wave in the

211 gical ventricular reconstruction reduced the end-systolic volume index by 19%, as compared with a red

212 arly in patients with increased preoperative end-systolic volume index or B-type natriuretic peptide.

213 End-systolic volume index remained unchanged (P=0.8).

214 cted by VNS (p < 0.05), but left ventricular end-systolic volume index was not different (p = 0.49).

215 eft ventricle end-diastolic volume index and end-systolic volume index were reduced from 128.4+/-22.1

216 rong predictor of change in left ventricular end-systolic volume index with monotonic increases as QR

217 ular dilatation (increased right ventricular end-systolic volume index), high Acute Physiology and Ch

218 ventricular ejection fraction, 23+/-9%; mean end-systolic volume index, 113+/-48 mL; mean total myoca

219 ST or T changes on ECG, and left ventricular end-systolic volume index, LGE maintained a >4-fold haza

220 n after adjusting for clinical risk factors, end-systolic volume index, mitral regurgitation, incompl

221 mpared with the CABG group: left ventricular end-systolic volume index, MR volume, and plasma B-type

222 ow-up (end-diastolic volume index, P=0.0056; end-systolic volume index, P=0.4719).

223 n analyses, the MRI-derived left ventricular end-systolic volume index, RV, and OMR category (severe

224 15% or more increase in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index.

225 LV remodeling was defined as change in LV end-systolic volume index.

226 ction, LV end-diastolic volume index, and LV end-systolic volume index.

227 (9.5 years between examinations 1 and 5) in end-systolic volume indexed (ESVi) to body surface area.

228 ld greater reduction in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indexes and a 3-fold greater increas

229 LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indexes decreased in patients with C

230 her right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indices accompanied by lower RV ejec

231 Corrected right ventricular end-systolic volume is a strong prognostic marker in idi

232 Left ventricular end-systolic volume progressively increased by 190% with

233 (74%) met standard criteria for response (LV end-systolic volume reduction >/= 15%), 18 patients (58%

234 %), 18 patients (58%) for super-response (LV end-systolic volume reduction >/= 30%).

235 35% to 91%; for predicting left ventricular end-systolic volume response, sensitivity ranged from 9%

236 cremental 10% reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume were associated with corresponding r

237 f reverse remodeling (> or =10% reduction in end-systolic volume) at 6 months.

238 tricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-systolic volume), plus clinical outcomes.

239 RV volumes (end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume), stroke volume, and EF were measure

240 eling (defined as >/=15% reduction in the LV end-systolic volume).

241 volumes (end-diastolic volume, -5 mLdecade; end-systolic volume, -3 mL/decade; EF, -2 mL/decade) and

242 ate adverse LV remodeling was attenuated (LV end-systolic volume, 42.6 mL [38.5-50.5] to 56.1 mL [50.

243 olic volume, LV wall stress, no change in LV end-systolic volume, and a fall in LV ejection fraction.

244 The mean LV end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction were 93 mL +/

245 ts included changes in end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction, analyzed wit

246 h-dose allopurinol regresses LVH, reduces LV end-systolic volume, and improves endothelial function i

247 ntricle end-diastolic volume, left ventricle end-systolic volume, and left ventricle ejection fractio

248 cular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic volume, and left ventricular ejection fract

249 end-diastolic volume, higher left ventricle end-systolic volume, and lower LVEF with both imaging mo

250 lar (LV) ejection fraction, infarct size, LV end-systolic volume, and LV end-diastolic volume were an

251 lar (LV) ejection fraction, infarct size, LV end-systolic volume, and LV end-diastolic volume were es

252 However, changes in end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and LVEF did not differ between gro

253 cular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic volume, and LVEF were not statistically sig

254 of end-systolic pressure, ejection fraction, end-systolic volume, and the end-diastolic pressure volu

255 es of left ventricular ejection fraction and end-systolic volume, but not with the severity of brain

256 cular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic volume, cardiac index, dP/dt max, -dP/dt mi

257 ft ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV ejection fraction, left atrial v

258 en comorbidity burden and improvements in LV end-systolic volume, LV end-diastolic volume, left ventr

259 Referral to PVR based on QRS duration, RV end-systolic volume, or RV ejection fraction may be bene

260 or volumes (end-diastolic volume, R(2)=0.43; end-systolic volume, R(2)=0.35; stroke volume, R(2)=0.30

261 to LV global functional parameters (indexed end-systolic volume, r=0.47, P<0.001; ejection fraction,

262 t predictor of survival, independent of age, end-systolic volume, sex, mitral regurgitation, diabetes

263 Biventricular end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, stroke volume, and ejection fractio

264 here LA emptying fraction was defined as (LA end-systolic volume--LA end-diastolic volume) / LA end-s

265 ecause of a preservation of left ventricular end-systolic volume.

266 reased LV ejection fraction and decreased LV end-systolic volume.

267 s quantified as 6-month percent change of LV end-systolic volume.

268 stolic volume--LA end-diastolic volume) / LA end-systolic volume.

269 iuretic peptide levels, and left ventricular end-systolic volume.

270 The primary end point was left ventricular end-systolic volume.

271 erioration in LV end-diastolic volume and LV end-systolic volume.

272 fined as a 15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume.

273 V ED 3-dimensional radius/wall thickness; LV end-systolic volume/body surface area, LV longitudinal s

274 by 14 months (end-diastolic volume/BSA(1.3), end-systolic volume/BSA(1.3), and mass/BSA(1.3) mean dif

275 icant reduction of left ventricular volumes (end-systolic volume: -4.3 [11.3] versus 7.4 [11.8], P=0.

276 4, Delta end-diastolic volume: P<0.02, Delta end-systolic volume: P<0.005).

277 tract-velocity time integral] / [indexed LA end-systolic volume]), where LA emptying fraction was de

278 dysfunction preceded LV dysfunction, with RV end systolic volumes increased and RV ejection fractions

279 ifferences were observed in left ventricular end-systolic volumes (-6.4 mL [95% CI, -18.8 to 5.9] ver

280 .2 +/- 0.7 versus 1.59 +/- 0.6 mL; P<0.001), end-systolic volumes (0.72 +/- 0.42 versus 0.40 +/- 0.19

281 71+/-4% versus 69+/-4%; P=0.03), and smaller end-systolic volumes (38+/-9 versus 43+/-12 mL; P=0.03).

282 versus 69%), higher indexed left ventricular end-systolic volumes (96 versus 40 mL), and greater inde

283 6; 95% CI, 0.8-2.5; P<0.001), and smaller LV end-systolic volumes (beta=1.4; 95% CI, 0.5-2.3; P=0.001

284 as reductions in atrial and left ventricular end-systolic volumes (LVESV) at 1 year.

285 =0.016), end-diastolic volume (P=0.029), and end-systolic volumes (P=0.021).

286 th crypts had lower indexed left ventricular end-systolic volumes (P=0.042) and higher indexed left a

287 s in indexed RV end-diastolic volumes and RV end-systolic volumes (RVESVi) (indexed RV end-diastolic

288 Fallot in women had larger right ventricular end-systolic volumes (standard deviation scores: women,

289 LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and diastolic function were signifi

290 The LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and LV ejection fraction were not s

291 LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes decreased as early as 30 days after

292 In controls, end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes increased and ejection fraction dec

293 ft ventricular end-diastolic and left atrial end-systolic volumes increased by 3.63 ml/m(2) (P = 0.00

294 , reductions in normalized end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were observed for the MeHA High gro

295 LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, ejection fraction, plasma norepine

296 icant treatment effects found on LV ED or LV end-systolic volumes, LV ED mass/LV ED volume or LV ED 3

297 sing left ventricular end-diastolic volumes, end-systolic volumes, stroke volumes, and masses with in

298 etic peptide (NT-proBNP) and circumferential end-systolic wall stress (cESS) on echocardiography are

299 increased in both groups (P < 0.001), as was end-systolic wall stress (P < 0.001).

300 Percutaneous mitral valve repair increased end-systolic wall stress (WSES; from [median] 184 mm Hg