ライフサイエンスコーパス: left ventricular ejection fraction

1 for patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

2 ed with a smaller improvement in post-PVR RV/left ventricular ejection fraction.

3 patients with >/=3+ primary MR and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

4 tomography total defect score, but not with left ventricular ejection fraction.

5 nterval, 1.09-2.07), but not with decline in left ventricular ejection fraction.

6 predict outcomes at least as effectively as left ventricular ejection fraction.

7 l injury was already detectable in preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

8 congestion, but no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction.

9 icant risk for death/VT, even with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

10 ymptoms or unspecific symptoms and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

11 d trial in symptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

12 ium improves cardiac function with augmented left ventricular ejection fraction.

13 ardiac arrest do not have a markedly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

14 which occur in the setting of more preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

15 particularly in those with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

16 d 550 patients with chronic HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction.

17 le branch block) wide QRS complex, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction.

18 tude of which correlated with improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction.

19 Heart Association class I), despite similar left ventricular ejection fractions.

20 t 12 months or by >/=0.05 at 3 months (Delta left ventricular ejection fraction, 0.21+/-0.10).

21 ents with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction, 0.24+/-0.09) were ra

22 ors of SCD were 3.07 (2.29-4.11) for reduced left ventricular ejection fraction; 1.85 (1.36-2.52) for

23 ation class III/IV: 55% versus 15%, P<0.001; left ventricular ejection fraction: 26+/-10% versus 36+/

24 or mean age=49-80 years, sex=0%-92% females, left ventricular ejection fraction=26%-61%).

25 e prospectively enrolled (age 62+/-11 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 27+/-7%).

26 n; age, 53 +/- 12 years, range, 16-73 years; left ventricular ejection fraction, 27 +/- 14%) underwen

27 Patients with VT/VF had significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction (28.3% versus 29.5%;

28 n consecutive patients (median age 68 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30%) were studied (6

29 95% male; 73% ischemic cardiomyopathy; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 31%; 68% with multip

30 patients (121 men), aged 67.4+/-11.9 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 33.1+/-13.6% (n=137),

31 to ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, who had left ventricular ejection fraction 35% or less, an autom

32 cular scar-related VT (75 ischemic patients; left ventricular ejection fraction, 36 +/- 13%).

33 table, symptomatic chronic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or lower.

34 Patients with RV dysfunction had poorer left ventricular ejection fractions (42% versus 69%), hi

35 ng ViV, 72 patients undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 +/- 17.4% vs. 5

36 tricular ejection fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 45+/-6%), RV dysfunc

37 patients (39%; 73% men; age, 41+/-25 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 49+/-16%) with high i

38 8) showed significantly reduced LV systolic (left ventricular ejection fraction = 49+/-10% versus 58+

39 and uric acid (8.2 +/- 2.6 mg/dL), decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (50% median; range, 1

40 vely reduced LV systolic function (mean+/-SD left ventricular ejection fraction = 52+/-11% versus 63+

41 +/-3 ms; P<0.05), followed by a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (54+/-6 versus 63+/-5

42 ong patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention

43 s, normal electrocardiography, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, a reliable diagnosti

44 1.8), both of whom had normalization of the left ventricular ejection fraction after discontinuation

45 added to left ventricular ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction alone, 0.68).

46 cardiomyopathy with cardiac atrophy, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and 50% mortality.

47 only clinical variables and those including left ventricular ejection fraction and b-type natriureti

48 al scores, more renal dysfunction, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction and CFR.

49 Russia/Georgia patients also had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and creatinine but hi

50 ed significantly with MR imaging measures of left ventricular ejection fraction and end-systolic volu

51 who would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure sym

52 pendent effect was observed in the change in left ventricular ejection fraction and infarct size, and

53 ermined the overall effect of CSC therapy on left ventricular ejection fraction and performed meta-re

54 Despite normal left ventricular ejection fraction and serum biomarkers,

55 Change from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction and ventricular volum

56 pseudonormal age-matched groups with normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and (2) distinguish

57 ovariates, including comorbidities, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, and antecedent myoca

58 .3) after adjusting for the TIMI Risk Score, left ventricular ejection fraction, and B-type natriuret

59 negative relationships with age, female sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, and body mass index.

60 Ivabradine treatment improved left ventricular ejection fraction, and clinical status

61 CMR parameters-late gadolinium enhancement, left ventricular ejection fraction, and especially right

62 %), even after adjustment for comorbidities, left ventricular ejection fraction, and functional heart

63 red with other subtypes of AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, and improved outcome

64 natriuretic peptide and uric acid, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, and increased relati

65 Median infarct weight, left ventricular ejection fraction, and infarct size did

66 ed change in noninfarct myocardial fibrosis, left ventricular ejection fraction, and infarct size.

67 logic diseases, less pronounced reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction, and lower brain natr

68 etes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and more recent onse

69 multivariate model, older age, anemia, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and presence of left

70 ation class III or IV heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and prolonged QRS du

71 in performance status and exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction, and quality of life.

72 the occurrence of atrial arrhythmias and low left ventricular ejection fraction, as estimated using m

73 T) patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction assigned to spironola

74 atus, exercise capacity, quality of life, or left ventricular ejection fraction at 24 weeks.

75 group exhibited significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction at 3, 6, and 12 month

76 The mean left ventricular ejection fraction at enrollment was 28+

77 Median left ventricular ejection fraction at presentation was 3

78 .14, SE=0.23), % females (B=-0.38, SE=0.04), left ventricular ejection fraction (B=-0.81, SE=0.20), a

79 ous balloon aortic valvuloplasty, had higher left ventricular ejection fraction, better cognitive fun

80 myopathy (prior bypass surgery in all cases; left ventricular ejection fraction between 25% and 30%)

81 disease free, which included measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction by multigated acquisi

82 Left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac torsion, and

83 Echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction change from baseline

84 a multivariable associate of the changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (coefficient, -2.12;

85 differences were found for global changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (control -9.6+/-1.3%

86 ciated with differential functional outcome (left ventricular ejection fraction day 21: permanent lig

87 linical study was to compare the accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction derived from intrinsi

88 tivariable model including respiratory rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes mellitus, a

89 At 24 weeks, left ventricular ejection fraction did not change in eit

90 The mean left ventricular ejection fraction did not decrease with

91 In addition, many patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction die of nonsudden caus

92 f candesartan protects against a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction during or shortly aft

93 the infarct, and adjacent myocardium and LV left ventricular ejection fraction ( EF ejection fractio

94 Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) by planimetry an

95 -flow (LG/LF) aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has been describ

96 Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to >35% occurs i

97 escription benefits subsidy, and less recent left ventricular ejection fraction evaluation.

98 nd provides incremental value in addition to left ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of

99 the trastuzumab group had a > 10% decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from baseline to a va

100 intake (from 80.7 to 85.5 mg/d; P = .57) and left ventricular ejection fraction (from 62% to 62.3%; P

101 h ICM and 21% of subjects with NICM achieved left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40% (p = 0.034).

102 Patients (n=64) with left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40%, New York Hear

103 In HFpEF, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40%, we derived pr

104 >/=50 years of age, with symptomatic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction >/=45%, were enrolled

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

106 fusion positron emission tomography and with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were followed (m

107 GE burden were measured in 205 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >50% and extracardiac

108 II to III, exercise capacity <80% of normal, left ventricular ejection fraction >50%, and diastolic d

109 eart Association functional class II to III, left ventricular ejection fraction >50%, diastolic dysfu

110 Sharing (UNOS) database with preserved donor left ventricular ejection fraction (>/=50%) and where pe

111 7%) patients given placebo, and decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction (>/=grade 2) in 19 (1

112 ents (63+/-14 years, 60% men) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>60%) and chronic mo

113 SCD in trials with systematic collection of left ventricular ejection fraction had a C index of 0.77

114 Patients with progressive decline of the left ventricular ejection fraction had a worse prognosis

115 Until now, left ventricular ejection fraction has been used as a ke

116 20% of patients with severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction have Vmax in this ran

117 ducibility (hazard ratio 0.198; P=0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (hazard ratio 0.916;

118 with congestive heart failure have preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF).

119 of patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an ind

120 , sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, high-sensitivity C-r

121 ms of HFPEF despite pharmacological therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction higher than 40%, and

122 gitation (HR 8.13, 95% CI 4.09-12.16), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93

123 hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.28-2.69), left ventricular ejection fraction (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.

124 1.73; 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.60; p = 0.011), low left ventricular ejection fraction (HR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.

125 Left ventricular ejection fraction improved (pPVR versus

126 in 64 patients (average age: 63+/-15 years; left ventricular ejection fraction in 27+/-9%; cardiogen

127 -regression revealed a similar difference in left ventricular ejection fraction in autologous (8.8%,

128 heart disease show a similar improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction in large animal model

129 ng revealed a significantly decreased global left ventricular ejection fraction in parallel with incr

130 d 12 months, there was a greater increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients taking iv

131 s indicative for the subsequent worsening of left ventricular ejection fraction in permanent ligation

132 [15.8], P=0.02) and no significant change of left ventricular ejection fraction in the cell group.

133 hypertrophy, but did prevent the decline in left ventricular ejection fraction in vivo.

134 ents with low-gradient (LG) AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, including paradoxica

135 Left ventricular ejection fraction increased (50.6% to 5

136 In patient subgroups defined by abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction, increased respirator

137 cation, neither H/M results, BNP levels, nor left ventricular ejection fraction interacted with ICD u

138 prediction algorithm composed of RBP4, TTR, left ventricular ejection fraction, interventricular sep

139 ity in patients with severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction irrespective of sympt

140 shortly after CABG among patients with a low left ventricular ejection fraction is highest between th

141 ath, but its risk in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction is unknown.

142 Although usually associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, isolated RV systolic

143 d area under the curve of 0.87 when added to left ventricular ejection fraction (left ventricular eje

144 nd-systolic volume, LV end-diastolic volume, left ventricular ejection fraction, left atrial volume,

145 rate, hypertension, systolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mas

146 Mean left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular str

147 riod, and were more likely to present with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30% compare

148 ever, after adjustment for confounders, only left ventricular ejection fraction less than 45%, atrial

149 Asymptomatic LVSD was defined as left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% by echo

150 ere observed with either treatment, although left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% occurre

151 Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to

152 Two hundred sixty-one patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=35% and New York H

153 lacebo=1354) patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction </=35%, 918 received

154 ibrillators are indicated in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction </=35%, QRS width >/=

155 Left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% (HR: 1.93, 95%

156 of nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% and absent hyp

157 of nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% and absent hyp

158 talized for cardiac decompensation and had a left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% before dischar

159 art Association functional class II-III, and left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% were screened

160 new diagnosis of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%) and previous

161 atment and control groups in HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%).

162 y assigned 253 patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%, and serum uri

163 Patients admitted for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%, dyspnea, and

164 tive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%, lower mean tr

165 in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%.

166 We studied patients with systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction </=45%) and mild to m

167 HA symptom class I to III heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction </=50% to biventricul

168 ft ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVD) (= left ventricular ejection fraction </=50%), and end-stag

169 Chronic kidney disease, pulmonary edema, left ventricular ejection fraction <20%, and peripheral

170 confidence interval, 1.06-3.85; P=0.03), and left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (OR, 1.83; 95% c

171 gies are hampered by over-reliance on global left ventricular ejection fraction <35% as the most impo

172 confidence interval, 1.52-5.40; P<0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (odds ratio, 3.0

173 r, New York Heart Association II to III, and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% within the past

174 e Registry and divided them into SHIFT type (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, New York Heart

175 Patients with flow-limiting CAD, left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, or revasculariz

176 nally, in the echocardiographic subcohort, a left ventricular ejection fraction <50% was present in o

177 iation class II-IV heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<45%) were screened

178 e randomly assigned 60 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%) and elevated C

179 ed cardiac conduction disturbance (81%), low left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%; 45%), atrial a

180 nts with symptomatic systolic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, </=35%) not caused b

181 Biventricular impairment (lowest quartile left ventricular ejection fraction, <50% and right ventr

182 % confidence interval, 1.4-13.5]; P=0.01 and left ventricular ejection fraction, <50%; hazard ratio,

183 es: left ventricular (LV) systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction), LV diastolic functi

184 disease variables associated with death were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) </=45% (hazard

185 f sudden cardiac death (SCD) in those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%.

186 pectively reviewed patients with obesity and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% who under

187 cts (22.9 g vs. 28.1 g; p = 0.06) and higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (48.3% vs. 43.

188 ht to prospectively evaluate recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and clinical o

189 terial coupling, and their associations with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart fail

190 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and infarct si

191 Primary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventr

192 ary endpoint was absolute change in 12-month left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventr

193 nts with grade III+ chronic AR and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the value

194 ith symptomatic aortic stenosis have reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before transca

195 associated with symptomatic and asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decline.

196 lopment of cardiac end points or significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) drop was assoc

197 Post-transplantation mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in th

198 tive study, we report outcome and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a large coh

199 ators (ICD) may experience an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) over time.

200 t a subset of patients with HF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) previously had

201 Patients with recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remain at risk

202 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was assessed b

203 ulative incidence of cardiac events (CE) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were evaluated

204 -treat trial, 42 patients with MF and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were randomize

205 tolic velocity (E/e') ratio, had the highest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and were pred

206 aphic assessment included 3-dimensional (3D) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longit

207 tricular remodeling, as commonly measured by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is associated

208 etermination of left ventricular volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

209 ilure (HF) differ significantly according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

210 ed by detailed angiographic burden of CAD or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

211 ology of advanced heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

212 ts with significant primary MR and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

213 reduction in infarct size and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

214 , and identified 472 donor hearts with LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=40%) on ini

215 persistent AF and idiopathic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=45%).

216 eline-recommended treatment for HF (n = 525; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] of 33 +/- 9%;

217 s had CCC with either a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]).

218 was observed with echocardiography (baseline left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 61%; global l

219 able cardioverter defibrillator at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], and proportio

220 Six patients had left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs) <30%, 8 had

221 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, left ventricular ejection fraction, mean resting aortic

222 th cardiac MRI, the most accurate method for left ventricular ejection fraction measurement.

223 Mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, left ventricular ejection fraction, mitral effective reg

224 STS score, resting left ventricular ejection fraction, mitral effective reg

225 d NYHA II and III (n=1254) NYHA IV had lower left ventricular ejection fraction; more had diabetes me

226 Measures of primary interest included left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial edema (mu

227 rhythmias, brain natriuretic peptide levels, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial perfusion

228 ond traditional cardiovascular risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial scar and

229 Age, left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Assoc

230 m intrinsic frequencies noninvasively versus left ventricular ejection fraction obtained with cardiac

231 In patients with THV thrombosis, a left ventricular ejection fraction of <35% was present i

232 class II-IV symptoms of heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.35 or less due t

233 ion (NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or less.

234 1 and nonischemic in 13 patients with a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 17%+/-5% before LV

235 capillary wedge pressure of 25.6 mm Hg, and left ventricular ejection fraction of 18.7%.

236 spectively studied 257 HF patients with mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 31.4+/-8.5%.

237 nd safety of levosimendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who we

238 ve Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, and

239 up performance status of 0-1, and a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55% (by e

240 performance status score of 0 or 1; a normal left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%; adeq

241 Five (13%) patients had decreases in left-ventricular ejection fraction, of which three (8%)

242 Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, older age, diabetes

243 age), myocardial fibrosis risk factors, and left ventricular ejection fraction or myocardial mass in

244 Of the left ventricular ejection fraction or strain and strain

245 ation III/IV symptoms, transaortic gradient, left ventricular ejection fraction, or procedural charac

246 pendent of age, sex, heart failure duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, or renal function.

247 The main endpoint of analysis was left ventricular ejection fraction; overall, the correla

248 (p = 0.001) and significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (p < 0.005).

249 sis, ostial lesions (p = 0.049) and impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.019) were inde

250 as an increase of 3.9%+/-1.0% in cardiac MRI left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001) and 2.4+/-0

251 inium enhancement area (P<0.0001), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001) because of

252 ls, subjects with HIV infection had 6% lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001), 7% higher

253 pacted to compacted myocardium (P<0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.01).

254 gher systolic blood pressure (P=0.01), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.03), lower LA st

255 tic relative area change was associated with left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.045) and ventric

256 f LVAD implantation predicted high post-LVAD left ventricular ejection fractions (P<0.01) and ejectio

257 have demonstrated substantial improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (partial recovery) an

258 differences in spirometry, lung volumes, and left ventricular ejection fraction, patients with hypoca

259 able Cox regression model that included age, left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS duration, and QR

260 10) but did not correlate significantly with left ventricular ejection fraction (r = -0.216, P = .252

261 However, PPM is associated with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction recovery post-transca

262 Left ventricular ejection fraction remains the primary r

263 Thirty-one patients achieved left ventricular ejection fraction reverse-remodeling re

264 Patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction showed significant re

265 se to cell therapy was defined by changes in left ventricular ejection fraction, systolic/diastolic v

266 ce of cardiac conduction disturbance and low left ventricular ejection fraction, than those with miss

267 n apparent rapid and spontaneous recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction, the long-term clinic

268 Cardiac function was assessed by left ventricular ejection fraction, torsion, and strain.

269 ts with severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing exercise s

270 onary disease and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undertook, after care

271 At enrollment, left ventricular ejection fraction was <50% in 55 patien

272 ; mean age was 64 years, 75% were male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32%, and peak VO2

273 onischemic dilated cardiomyopathy), the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32+/-12% (range,

274 were of other race/ethnicity, and the median left ventricular ejection fraction was 34%.

275 ion functional class III or IV, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 43 +/- 12%.

276 age was 70 years (range, 45-71 years), mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 51% (+/-17%), and

277 The mean+/-SD left ventricular ejection fraction was 58.2+/-9.1%.

278 Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 65%; late gadolin

279 The left ventricular ejection fraction was consistently decr

280 limit of normal, 4.18 vs 6.59; P = .02) and left ventricular ejection fraction was higher (mean [SD]

281 Left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in patients

282 In contrast, no female died and their left ventricular ejection fraction was only moderately a

283 We observed that the improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly gre

284 Left ventricular ejection fraction was similar among gro

285 Impaired ventricular function (right or left ventricular ejection fraction) was associated with

286 In addition to reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, we identified other

287 with extracardiac sarcoidosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, we sought to (1) det

288 ts with severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, we sought to assess

289 rea </=1 cm(2), Vmax >/=4 m/s) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were included.

290 roponin I levels in the setting of preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were not associated w

291 Both right ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular ejection fraction were preserved after

292 Pulmonary edema, cardiac enlargement, and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly (P

293 t primary mitral regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent mitral

294 e with placebo among patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing c

295 + primary mitral regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, who underwent mitral

296 ic frequency methods can be used to document left ventricular ejection fraction with accuracy compara

297 de to generate almost continuous analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction without arterial cann

298 justment were increasing age, lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, worse post-procedura

299 a, presence of mitral regurgitation, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, younger age, and dia

300 ilure included cable externalization, higher left ventricular ejection fraction, younger age, higher