ライフサイエンスコーパス: left ventricular assist device

1 re, and these changes are not reversed after left ventricular assist device.

2 n failing hearts chronically unloaded with a left ventricular assist device.

3 hat it may be implicated in remodeling after left ventricular assist device.

4 routinely discarded during implantation of a left ventricular assist device.

5 heart transplantation, and implantation of a left ventricular assist device.

6 oups remained normal during support with the left ventricular assist device.

7 oxygenation and removal of the percutaneous left ventricular assist device.

8 undergoing implantation of a continuous flow left ventricular assist device.

9 failing hearts resolved after unloading by a left ventricular assist device.

10 ry support with the Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device.

11 rent evidence on outcomes of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

12 ilure who may not be suitable candidates for left ventricular assist devices.

13 and in an equivalent cohort of patients with left ventricular assist devices.

14 in patients with A-HF, including those with left ventricular assist devices.

15 implanted with Heartmate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

16 h aortic stenosis, mitral regurgitation, and left ventricular assist devices.

17 TCS devices were included for analysis (59% left ventricular assist devices, 23% right ventricular a

18 were implanted in 502 patients with AMI: 443 left ventricular assist devices; 33 biventricular assist

19 ble for cardiac transplantation to receive a left ventricular assist device (68 patients) or optimal

20 the unique research opportunities offered by left ventricular assist device analysis are beginning to

21 modeling of the human heart in response to a left ventricular assist device and functional recovery t

22 Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in

23 Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management) d

24 I is common in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices and may lead to clinical

25 is frequently reported with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices and may result from anti

26 resynchronization therapy and evaluation of left ventricular assist devices and transplant vasculopa

27 ing transplant (bridged to transplant with a left ventricular assist device), and intervention studie

28 HF, the criteria for heart transplantation, left ventricular assist device, and palliative care are

29 Biventricular pacing, left ventricular assist devices, and disease-specific ma

30 Left ventricular assist devices are becoming an increasi

31 donor shortage for cardiac transplantation, left ventricular assist devices are frequently serving a

32 There is growing evidence that left-ventricular assist devices are indicated in some pa

33 sychological changes after implantation of a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (D

34 Despite the ability of left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (D

35 The use of left ventricular assist devices as a strategy to bridge

36 e when treated with implanted pulsatile-flow left ventricular assist devices as compared with medical

37 th from any cause in the group that received left ventricular assist devices as compared with the med

38 among patients who received the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device, as compared with preappr

39 t of AI in 232 patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist device at our institution.

40 equiring mechanical circulatory support with left ventricular assist devices at various points in the

41 irement, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or a left ventricular assist device before initiation of ECLS

42 erformed concurrently during implantation of left ventricular assist devices, but the added procedura

43 A continuous-flow left ventricular assist device can provide effective hem

44 Potential heart transplantation/left ventricular assist device candidacy is suggested by

45 The MELD score identified left ventricular assist device candidates at high risk f

46 ery and may offer similar prognostication in left ventricular assist device candidates with comparabl

47 for stress echocardiography in the areas of left ventricular assist devices, cardiac transplantation

48 novel approach to optimizing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) function and di

49 ) in patients supported by a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD).

50 ng outcomes in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs), stratified b

51 unverified in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs).

52 nd survival of patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs).

53 improvements in outcomes in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices compared with patients i

54 In total, 49 patients had their left ventricular assist device deactivated before death,

55 Most patients died within an hour of left ventricular assist device deactivation and all with

56 Continuous-flow pumps are newer types of left ventricular assist devices developed to overcome so

57 dicated caregiver before destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) implantation; h

58 Destination therapy left ventricular assist devices (DT LVADs) are one of th

59 Left ventricular assist device dysfunction is a recogniz

60 ported with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device for bridge to transplanta

61 efficacy, and role of different percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for hemodynamic support

62 There is considerable increase in the use of left ventricular assist devices for the treatment of sev

63 0 days and </=18 months by a continuous flow left ventricular assist device from June 2006 to Decembe

64 the use of the first- and second-generation left ventricular assist devices has come from a recently

65 Large pulsatile left ventricular assist devices have been the mainstay o

66 Large pulsatile left ventricular assist devices have been used as bridge

67 Implantable left ventricular assist devices have benefited patients

68 Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices have replaced first-gene

69 all patients supported by a continuous flow left ventricular assist device (Heart Mate II) from June

70 in triplicate among 60 axial continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (HeartMate II) patients (

71 9 mRNAs normalized by as much as 25% in post-left ventricular assist device hearts.

72 Data were obtained from 4 patients without a left ventricular assist device (HF group: mean age, 58.3

73 eurysm repair (n = 12633), or a percutaneous left ventricular assist device implant (n = 1816) betwee

74 can be obtained from patients at the time of left ventricular assist device implantation and again at

75 kg/m(2); age, 51+/-12 years) obtained during left ventricular assist device implantation and at expla

76 ohort occurred in 433 patients (21.7%) after left ventricular assist device implantation and was asso

77 Mechanical unloading after left ventricular assist device implantation corrects sys

78 Left ventricular assist device implantation improved who

79 ardiac tissue of patients with HF undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation surgery.

80 biopsies of multiple HF patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation surgery.

81 the median (25th-75th percentile) time from left ventricular assist device implantation to death was

82 nositol-3 kinase/Akt signaling cascade after left ventricular assist device implantation was confirme

83 cardium of heart failure patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation were enginee

84 dult hCPCs isolated from patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation were enginee

85 tients with aortic valve (AV) surgery before left ventricular assist device implantation were exclude

86 fy adult patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation with mainstr

87 rdiac events (mortality, transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation) for 2 years

88 eatments applied (eg, medication initiation, left ventricular assist device implantation), length of

89 and major CV events (death, transplantation, left ventricular assist device implantation).

90 mposite end points (death/cardiac transplant/left ventricular assist device implantation).

91 4 years for major cardiac events (mortality, left ventricular assist device implantation, and heart t

92 bleeding episodes at 112 +/- 183 days after left ventricular assist device implantation, with 50% ex

93 t common complications after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

94 heart biopsy samples of patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation.

95 alization of protein kinase C isoforms after left ventricular assist device implantation.

96 posite end point of death/cardiac transplant/left ventricular assist device implantation.

97 hearts or the apical LV core at the time of left ventricular assist device implantation.

98 reedom from death, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation.

99 n patient outcomes after HeartMate II (HMII) left ventricular assist device implantation.

100 early right-sided heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device implantation.

101 underwent transplantation, and 17 underwent left ventricular assist device implantation.

102 ents at the time of heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation.

103 After Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device implantation, lactate lev

104 events: 47 deaths, 9 transplantations, and 6 left ventricular assist device implantations over 4 year

105 ents (64 deaths, 10 heart transplants, and 7 left ventricular assist device implantations) during the

106 Mechanical support with left ventricular assist device improved all of these met

107 The HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device improves renal and hepati

108 cle obtained before and after placement of a left ventricular assist device in 11 patients.

109 Treatment with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device in patients with advanced

110 The use of a left ventricular assist device in patients with advanced

111 ) undergoing VT ablation with a percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in 6 centers in the Unit

112 or without (n=17) biomechanical support from left ventricular assist devices in comparison to nonfail

113 The use of left ventricular assist devices in treating patients wit

114 and efficacy of the Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device in patients with cardioge

115 Left ventricular assist device-induced mechanical unload

116 ant of Staphylococcus aureus associated with left ventricular assist device infection and prosthetic

117 uman left ventricular tissue obtained during left ventricular assist device insertion (heart failure

118 Before left ventricular assist device insertion, patient age wa

119 A left ventricular assist device is an acceptable alternat

120 The use of left ventricular assist devices is an accepted therapy f

121 ng the complex trade-offs of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices is challenging and made

122 trial demonstrated that the implantation of left-ventricular assist devices is superior to any avail

123 e whether results with the HeartMate (HM) II left ventricular assist device (LVAD) (Thoratec Corporat

124 y consisting of mechanical unloading using a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and pharmacologica

125 evaluate the use of a continuous-flow rotary left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a bridge to hea

126 apy, orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT), left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination the

127 RMACS database for primary implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) between June 23, 2

128 time points after mechanical unloading by a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) by small RNA seque

129 ve risk of right ventricular (RV) failure in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) candidates.

130 Insertion of an implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) complicated by ear

131 Mechanical unloading with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) decreases the ener

132 h a history of ischemic cardiomyopathy after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) endocarditis cause

133 tients who undergo mechanical support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) exhibit reverse re

134 ber of patients are requiring support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for survival when

135 upport of medically refractory hearts with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has induced regres

136 Destination therapy with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has the potential

137 n = 92), urgent transplantation (n = 14), or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation (n =

138 Timing of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in ad

139 hymal precursor cells (MPCs) injected during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation may c

140 The effect of DM on post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation outco

141 rwent emergency heart transplantation, 1 had left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, and

142 tive of mortality after continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

143 study was to determine renal outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

144 ng role of tricuspid valve annuloplasty with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

145 predicting RV failure in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

146 nt coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

147 utologous skeletal myoblasts concurrent with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

148 A left ventricular assist device (LVAD) improves survival

149 e (HM) II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in a commercial se

150 g that mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) induces changes in

151 Mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established

152 Reports of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) malfunction have f

153 nic shock patients to receive an implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplan

154 g therapy, defibrillators, and adjustment of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) parameters.

155 omyopathy (NICM) have shown that a subset of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients can achie

156 e of this study was to determine outcomes in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients older tha

157 tribute to positive or negative outcomes for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients remains u

158 sota (UM) obtained (1) at transplantation or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement (end-sta

159 nd inflammation in human subjects undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement as a bri

160 After left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement for adva

161 41 patients with end-stage HF who underwent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement were stu

162 The number of centers with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) research programs

163 Because support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) results in signifi

164 unloading of the failing human heart with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) results in signifi

165 We hypothesized that some aspects of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) reverse remodeling

166 Implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) reverses some of t

167 Myocardial recovery after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support has been r

168 r arrhythmias (VAs) while on continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support has not be

169 -converting enzyme inhibition (ACE-I) during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support in patient

170 aluated the efficacy and safety of long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support in stage D

171 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support is a commo

172 This study evaluated the impact of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support on surviva

173 termine whether improved contractility after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support reflects a

174 II (HMII) (Thoratec, Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support.

175 as also obtained after 4.1 +/- 1.1 months of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support.

176 giodysplasia develops during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support.

177 ) use in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) surgery.

178 e study, we sought to evaluate the effect of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy on ventric

179 Infection is a serious complication of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy.

180 ct is reversed by mechanical unloading using left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy.

181 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) treatment is known

182 The effect of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) unloading on cardi

183 the longitudinal effects of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) unloading on myoca

184 advanced heart failure patients selected for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) were more likely t

185 mon in patients with the HeartMate II (HMII) left ventricular assist device (LVAD), but the impact of

186 r patients with end-stage heart failure, the left ventricular assist device (LVAD), which was origina

187 activity in patients with end-stage HF after left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced remodeling

188 f these animal data, the notion that chronic left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced unloading

189 eadmissions after implantation of axial flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

190 be marked after myocardial unloading with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

191 ctions of patients on chronic support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

192 ned to diagnose the common malfunctions of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

193 intravenous (IV) inotropes or an implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

194 ients listed for transplant or scheduled for left ventricular assist device (LVAD; 60 patients), in p

195 Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) as a bridge (BTT)

196 cardiac and respiratory failure with either left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) or extracorporeal

197 Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) provide cardiac s

198 eloping early and late after implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD).

199 core (DTRS) in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD).

200 After left ventricular-assist device (LVAD) support, a proport

201 on right-ventricular failure (RVF) following left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

202 rtant determinants of successful outcomes of left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

203 ed with decreased waitlist survival while on left ventricular assist device (LVADs) support and after

204 ombosis in patients with HeartMate II (HMII) left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) (Thoratec Corpor

205 the aorta from patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and directly mea

206 verse event in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and is caused by

207 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being used i

208 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being used w

209 Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are given 30 day

210 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly

211 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are now widely a

212 rial first demonstrated that implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination t

213 overy in response to mechanical unloading by left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has been demonst

214 ort of heart failure (HF) patients receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has decoupling o

215 Survival of patients on left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has improved.

216 Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become the

217 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used a

218 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have improved su

219 Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have revolutioni

220 iences now exist that define deactivation of Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs) in futility as n

221 Data for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) in patients with

222 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) induce reverse r

223 ught to assess the impact of continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) on functional ca

224 ventricular unloading after implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) on mitochondrial

225 The REMATCH trial showed that left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) prolonged surviv

226 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide better o

227 These early left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) suffered signifi

228 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were developed a

229 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), by providing si

230 d mortality in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

231 ients supported chronically with implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

232 s is an uncommon, but severe complication of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

233 Improved safety of left ventricular assist devices means that these are bec

234 ence interval, 4.19-8.61; P<0.001), need for left ventricular assist device (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% co

235 vel roles in the evaluation of patients with left ventricular assist devices or potential donors for

236 or prognosis (events [death, requirement for left ventricular assist device, or cardiac transplant] w

237 pre-defined outcome was freedom from death, left ventricular assist device, or heart transplantation

238 initiation of ECLS showed that the use of a left ventricular assist device (p = .001; OR, 3.45; 95%

239 ctive review of Heartmate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients at 2 centers fro

240 hrombotic therapy identifies continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients at major risk fo

241 s in the aortic stenosis rabbit model and in left ventricular assist device patients demonstrated tha

242 One in every 10 left ventricular assist device patients demonstrates par

243 spected device thrombosis in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients varies widely, r

244 ective analysis evaluated 51 continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients who received sec

245 Importantly, 9% of all left ventricular assist device patients who were not exp

246 ssure (BP) measurement among continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients.

247 trial of dabigatran versus phenprocoumon in left ventricular assist device patients.

248 A basic understanding of left ventricular assist device physiology is essential t

249 rs had a previous GI bleeding history before left ventricular assist device placement (33% versus 5%;

250 namic support with a microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) on renal function

251 s to investigate the effects of percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) support during ca

252 Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVADs) are increasingl

253 ct of transfusion by surgery type (excluding left ventricular assist device procedures/transplant) (H

254 Left ventricular assist devices prolong the lives of pat

255 Current-generation left ventricular assist devices provide circulatory supp

256 0 revolutions per minute) in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device pump speed from a maximum

257 ted actuarial survival after continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices ranged from 56% to 87% a

258 Patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device receiving secondary proph

259 lar to outcomes for contemporary destination left ventricular assist device recipients.

260 ospitalization are at high risk for death or left ventricular assist device rescue.

261 ilure samples) and at heart transplant (post-left ventricular assist device samples).

262 d echocardiography are essential to optimize left ventricular assist device settings and cardiac perf

263 The totality of data for continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices show consistent improvem

264 t failure receiving mechanical unloading via left ventricular assist devices show increased CTCF abun

265 In contrast, the hearts of 10 patients with left ventricular assist devices showed minimal SRF fragm

266 while the reversibility of these defects by left ventricular assist device suggests metabolic resili

267 xamine the molecular changes associated with left ventricular assist device support and how these may

268 revalence of bleeding during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support and to identify p

269 ctors of myocardial recovery on contemporary left ventricular assist device support are poorly define

270 laments isolated from human myocardium after left ventricular assist device support demonstrated a 37

271 and more recently as a destination therapy, left ventricular assist device support is now recognized

272 ction improve over time with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support or whether there

273 Use of neurohormonal blockers on left ventricular assist device support was significantly

274 at risk, higher DOPBP during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support was significantly

275 rbidity and mortality during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support yet their relatio

276 eceptor blocker usage during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support, and a more preva

277 II) (Thoratec Corp., Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device support, with focus on th

278 nd measured blood chemistry over time during left ventricular assist device support.

279 ar, structural, and hemodynamic levels after left ventricular assist device support.

280 n failing human myocardium and reduced after left ventricular assist device support.

281 ognized as a complication of continuous flow left ventricular assist device support; however, its lon

282 rse events are common during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support; yet, their relat

283 In failing left ventricular assist device-supported hearts, S100A1

284 ntricular hypertrophy), failing, and failing left ventricular assist device-supported hearts.

285 Left ventricular assist device-supported patients are us

286 Approximately one-third of left ventricular assist device-supported patients experi

287 tributed to improved outcomes with long-term left ventricular assist device technology, but have also

288 Among subjects with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices, the restoration of puls

289 iling human hearts obtained before and after left ventricular assist device treatment (mean duration:

290 s analysis analysis of data sites discussing left ventricular assist device treatment for heart failu

291 zation of the heart failure miR signature by left ventricular assist device treatment.

292 on and mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device, treatment with the inter

293 14 years) with Heartmate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices underwent hemodynamic an

294 t a specific combination of drug therapy and left ventricular assist device unloading results in sign

295 reverse remodeling routinely associated with left ventricular assist device use, reviewed in detail,

296 Use of left ventricular assist devices was similar (38% vs. 33%

297 survival (without urgent transplantation or left ventricular assist device) was improved in the curr

298 edefined end points of death, transplant, or left ventricular assist device were tracked during 4 yea

299 with mild or severe RV dysfunction and prior left ventricular assist devices were analyzed separately

300 vents (47 deaths, 10 transplantations, and 9 left ventricular assist devices) were strongly associate