ライフサイエンスコーパス: end-systolic volume

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 e increase in ejection fraction and a larger end-systolic volume.

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

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

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

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

12 ession and preoperative LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes.

13 lume (0.53 mL +/- 0.03 vs 0.65 mL +/- 0.04), end-systolic volume (0.36 mL +/- 0.03 vs 0.49 mL +/- 0.0

14 .2 +/- 0.7 versus 1.59 +/- 0.6 mL; P<0.001), end-systolic volumes (0.72 +/- 0.42 versus 0.40 +/- 0.19

15 .01 mm/mL; P<0.01), a lower left ventricular end-systolic volume (-0.01 mm/mL; P=0.01), and lower lef

16 SMT decreased both left ventricular end-systolic volume (10.4 +/- 2 to 7.7 +/- 4 mL; p < .05

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

18 /-7.32 mL; P=0.03), a trend toward decreased end systolic volume (142.4+/-16.5 versus 107.6+/-7.4 mL;

19 0.83 cm to 6.51 +/- 0.91 cm, p < 0.001), LV end-systolic volume (178 +/- 72 to 145 +/- 23 ml, p < 0.

20 lic volumes (343 +/- 23 microl), but smaller end-systolic volumes (180 +/- 16 microl) in the collagen

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

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

23 ignificantly overestimated end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (26 and 19 mL; P < 0.05), resulting

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

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

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

27 71+/-4% versus 69+/-4%; P=0.03), and smaller end-systolic volumes (38+/-9 versus 43+/-12 mL; P=0.03).

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

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

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

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

32 .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,

33 ened, moderate MR accompanied LV dilatation (end-systolic volume, 44+/-5 mL versus 12+/-5 mL control,

34 ndicated by an increase in right ventricular end-systolic volume (54 +/- 10 to 87 +/-6 mL; p < .05) a

35 49+/-16% versus -35+/-20%), left ventricular end-systolic volume (-59+/-20 versus -37+/-21%), and per

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

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

38 min(-1).kg(-1), P=0.021), RV dysfunction (RV end-systolic volume 61 versus 55 mL/m2, P=0.018; RV ejec

39 (-5.6% [95% CI -8.7 to -2.5]; p < 0.001) and end-systolic volume (-7.4 ml [95% CI -12.2 to -2.7]; p =

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

41 omografts: end-diastolic volume 145+/-34 mL, end-systolic volume 78+/-23 mL; autografts: end-diastoli

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

43 utografts: end-diastolic volume 157+/-33 mL, end-systolic volume 89+/-25 mL; P=NS), whereas stroke vo

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

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

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

47 nd-diastolic dimensions and left ventricular end-systolic volume also decreased after 12 weeks of BVS

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

49 ry regurgitation, elevated right ventricular end systolic volumes and reduced right and left ventricu

50 The SHR showed a raised LV end-systolic volume and a correspondingly poorer ejectio

51 Left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volume and ejection fraction data provide s

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

53 At eight weeks, LV end-systolic volume and end-systolic muscle-to-cavity-ar

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

55 graphy with respect to end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume and left ventricular ejection fracti

56 noninvasive calculation of left ventricular end-systolic volume and left ventricular end-diastolic v

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

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

59 ly negative relationships were found between end-systolic volume and preceding R-R interval (-0.82<r<

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

61 Changes in end-systolic volume and stress were also statistically d

62 ly positive relationships were found between end-systolic volume and the R-R interval before the prec

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

64 orrelated directly with LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and inversely with LV ejection frac

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

66 tion with or without obstruction, increasing end-systolic volumes and reducing apical cavity compress

67 essure/volume ratio (systolic blood pressure/end systolic volume) and , whilst diastolic function was

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

69 In contrast, end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and EF remained unchanged during th

70 tween observers for RV end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction were 0.93, 0.

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

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

73 terial) plasma norepinephrine (tNEPI), LVEF, end-systolic volume, and end-diastolic volume were measu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

82 LV ejection fraction, global LV end-systolic volume, and mitral annular area were relati

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

84 pressures, LV end-diastolic pressure, and LV end-systolic volume, as well as a decrease in LV ejectio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

99 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

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

101 as associated with reduced end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (both P<0.001), reduced LV mass (P<

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

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

104 cing shifted the ESPVR rightward, increasing end-systolic volume by 45% (range, 17% to 151%; P=0.002)

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

106 erm use of the CSD lowered end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes by -19 +/- 4% and -22 +/- 8%, respe

107 in end-diastolic volumes (EDV) by 29% and in end-systolic volumes by 38% were demonstrated immediatel

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

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

110 9% of 426 patients, whereas left ventricular end-systolic volume decreased > or = 15% in 56% of 286 p

111 -0.07, P=0.01), end-systolic stress fell and end-systolic volume decreased instead of increased.

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

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

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

115 xamination to determine LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume (EDV and ESV, respectively), mass, e

116 asurements were made of LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, ejection fraction, LV mass, severi

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

118 pressure, cardiac output, end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, ejection fraction, stroke work, an

119 relationship of end-systolic pressure versus end-systolic volume [Emax] and the slope of the dP/dtmax

120 ardiographic assessments of left ventricular end-systolic volume, end-diastolic volume, mass, and eje

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

122 aracteristics analysis defined an EF<45%, an end-systolic volume (ESV) >70 mL, and an end-diastolic v

123 a significant decrease (P < or = 0.01) in LV end-systolic volume (ESV) and a significant increase in

124 effect) in LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) was

125 sible for diastolic suction, is dependent on end-systolic volume (ESV) and systolic transmural and 3D

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

127 . 1.8 +/- 7.9; P < 0.05), difference between end-systolic volume (ESV) at rest and stress (DeltaESV[s

128 filling by suction require contraction to an end-systolic volume (ESV) below equilibrium volume (Veq)

129 ements of the end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) can be obtained, and the relat

130 .001), and LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) increased (EDV: 71 +/- 3 vs. 8

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

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

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

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

135 End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV) and ejecti

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

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

138 actions (LVEF), end-diastolic volumes (EDV), end-systolic volumes (ESV) and stroke volumes (SV).

139 first month (120% increased left ventricular end-systolic volume [ESV; P<0.01]), but shunt closure re

140 values with r = 0.82, and end diastolic and end systolic volumes from tomography correlated with fir

141 A change in left ventricular end-systolic volume from intermediate stage to peak exer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

149 Isoprenaline decreased left ventricular end-systolic volume in wild-type hearts (10.6 +/- 1.6 to

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

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

152 In control dogs, LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume increased significantly (62+/-4 vers

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

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

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

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

157 - 10.4 to 39 +/- 12.4%, and left ventricular end systolic volume index decreased from 109 +/- 71 to 6

158 LV end systolic volume index is a significant predictor of

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

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

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

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

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

164 -26.2 versus -7.4 mL/m(2)), left ventricular end-systolic volume index (-28.7 versus -9.1 mL/m(2)), l

165 rsus 22 years; P<0.001) and had increased RV end-systolic volume index (43 versus 35 mL/m2; P=0.03),

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

167 ml/m(2) vs. 73 +/- 8 ml/m(2), p = 0.03) and end-systolic volume index (ESVI) 20 +/- 6 ml/m(2) vs. 17

168 3-vessel CAD, EF below the median (27%), and end-systolic volume index (ESVI) above the median (79 ml

169 ate left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), end-systolic volume index (ESVI) and infarct size (IS),

170 We assessed whether end-systolic volume index (ESVI) at 90 to 180 minutes in

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

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

173 he primary study end point was the change in end-systolic volume index (ESVI).

174 We noninvasively characterized EaI/E(LV)I = end-systolic volume index (ESVI)/stroke volume index (SV

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

176 The left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) decreased from 80.4 +

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

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

179 Patients with a left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) reduction of at least

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

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

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

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

184 end-diastolic volume index (P=0.007), and LV end-systolic volume index (P< or =0.0001).

185 3-mL/m(2) mean reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume index (P<0.0001), whereas non-LBBB p

186 =0.0007), LV ejection fraction (P=0.001), LV end-systolic volume index (P=0.0006), or segmental WMA (

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

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

189 3 mL/m2 decrease (least square mean+/-SE) in end-systolic volume index and a 6+/-1% increase in left

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

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

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

193 , LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), LV end-systolic volume index and LV ejection fraction (LVEF

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

195 of contractility (end-systolic stress [ESS]/end-systolic volume index and midwall fractional shorten

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

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

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

199 and the circumferential end-systolic stress/end-systolic volume index ratio, SV remained an independ

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

201 Left ventricular end-systolic volume index remained unchanged, whereas LV

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

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

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

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

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

207 d the interventricular mechanical delay, the end-systolic volume index, and the area of the mitral re

208 yond age and sex (both P< or =0.01), were LV end-systolic volume index, LA volume, atrial fibrillatio

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

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

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

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

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

214 15% or more increase in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index.

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

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

217 (9.5 years between examinations 1 and 5) in end-systolic volume indexed (ESVi) to body surface area.

218 Left ventricular EDV and end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area were sm

219 cular resistance (PVR), RV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indexes (EDVI and ESVI, respectively

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

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

222 to quantify changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indices (DeltaEDVI, DeltaESVI) and e

223 o determine LV mass index, end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indices (EDVI, ESVI), regional wall

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

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

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

227 001; patients: +6 mL [3%], not significant), end-systolic volume larger (healthy subjects: +9 mL [17%

228 End diastolic volume, end systolic volume, left ventricular mass and left vent

229 but significant correlations with age, EDV, end-systolic volume, left ventricular ejection fraction

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

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

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

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

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

235 n left ventricular end-diastolic (LVEDV) and end-systolic volume (LVESV) as well as interstitial coll

236 Primary endpoint was change in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) at 24 weeks from baseline, m

237 tolic volume (LVEDV) index, left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) index, and LVEF were obtaine

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

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

240 mages yielded left ventricular (LV) mass, LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), LV end-diastolic volume (LV

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

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

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

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

245 nd at 70.06 +/- 14.8 ml with MRI (r = 0.99), end-systolic volume measured 39.8 +/- 10.4 ml with 3D US

246 Smaller end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes measured with RT3DE immediately aft

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

248 RT3DE underestimated end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes only slightly (5 and 6 mL), with no

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

250 sment of LV end diastolic volume (p < 0.02), end systolic volume (p < 0.01) and LVEF (p < 0.03).

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

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

253 4 +/- 7% (P<0.001) because of an increase in end-systolic volume (P<0.05).

254 sed LV end-diastolic volume (P=0.001) and LV end-systolic volume (P=0.0001) and greater LV sphericity

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

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

257 e of 20% to 29% (P=0.003) and a reduction in end-systolic volume (P=0.03) in the treated patients.

258 tion in end-diastolic volume, an increase in end-systolic volume (P=0.058), a rising trend in end-sys

259 =0.016), end-diastolic volume (P=0.029), and end-systolic volumes (P=0.021).

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

261 4, Delta end-diastolic volume: P<0.02, Delta end-systolic volume: P<0.005).

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

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

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

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

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

267 .34 mL; bias, -4.93 mL) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (r=0.96; standard error of the estim

268 or group II (end-diastolic volume, r = 0.66; end-systolic volume, r = 0.69).

269 for group I (end-diastolic volume, r = 0.86; end-systolic volume, r = 0.81) and only fair for group I

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

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

272 x, ejection fraction, peak systolic pressure/end-systolic volume ratio) to endotoxin in both study gr

273 (74%) met standard criteria for response (LV end-systolic volume reduction >/= 15%), 18 patients (58%

274 %), 18 patients (58%) for super-response (LV end-systolic volume reduction >/= 30%).

275 eak stress, and an abnormal left ventricular end-systolic volume response to stress were independent

276 35% to 91%; for predicting left ventricular end-systolic volume response, sensitivity ranged from 9%

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

278 m Hg for BT versus -15+/-3 mm Hg for NA, and end-systolic volume rose by 15+/-3 versus 6+/-2 mL), wit

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

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

281 based method also tended to overestimate the end systolic volume slightly.

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

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

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

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

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

287 estimate left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes using electron-beam computed tomogr

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

289 ction fraction, from which right ventricular end-systolic volume was derived, was measured by the the

290 Ejection fraction or end-systolic volume was not an independent predictor of

291 ular end-diastolic volume, while ventricular end-systolic volume was reduced by 24 +/- 6% of pre-heat

292 End-systolic volume was similar with gated tomography an

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

294 The LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were 319 +/- 12 microl and 190 +/-

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

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

297 ongoing increase in end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume, whereas H-NCT did not

298 s, especially the change in left ventricular end-systolic volume with exercise and the exercise eject

299 V pacing but increased stroke work and lower end-systolic volumes with LV pacing.

300 ft ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume--LV end-systolic volume) x heart rate x arterio-venous oxyge