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

1 ng hearts resolved after unloading by a left ventricular assist device.

2 nd these changes are not reversed after left ventricular assist device.

3 ling hearts chronically unloaded with a left ventricular assist device.

4 t may be implicated in remodeling after left ventricular assist device.

5 nely discarded during implantation of a left ventricular assist device.

6 pport with the Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device.

7 transplantation, and implantation of a left ventricular assist device.

8 enation and removal of the percutaneous left ventricular assist device.

9 going implantation of a continuous flow left ventricular assist device.

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

11 with the advent of more durable, implantable ventricular assist devices.

12 echnologically advanced, safe, and effective ventricular assist devices.

13 with the advent of more durable, implantable ventricular assist devices.

14 the current regulatory environment assessing ventricular assist devices.

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

16 oraneously implanted, commercially available ventricular assist devices.

17 atients with A-HF, including those with left ventricular assist devices.

18 anted with Heartmate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

19 tic stenosis, mitral regurgitation, and left ventricular assist devices.

20 eived extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or ventricular assist device, 17 (16.3%) had heart transpla

21 % left ventricular assist devices, 23% right ventricular assist devices, 18% biventricular assist dev

22 eal membrane oxygenation, 22 (4.3%) received ventricular assist device, 21 (4.1%) received heart tran

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

24 implanted in 502 patients with AMI: 443 left ventricular assist devices; 33 biventricular assist devi

25 After receiving a ventricular assist device, a patient experiences months

26 Compared with HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device alone, survival was equivalent

27 ing of the human heart in response to a left ventricular assist device and functional recovery that h

28 ssment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambu

29 ssment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management) demons

30 common in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices and may lead to clinical deco

31 requently reported with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices and may result from anticoagu

32 reflects the growing number of children with ventricular assist devices and the management of these p

33 nchronization therapy and evaluation of left ventricular assist devices and transplant vasculopathy.

34 the criteria for heart transplantation, left ventricular assist device, and palliative care are well

35 Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ventricular assist device, and vasoactive medications ar

36 ortic balloon counterpulsation, percutaneous ventricular assist devices, and extra-corporeal membrane

37 ill be discussed: intra-aortic balloon pump, ventricular assist devices, and extracorporeal membrane

38 Left ventricular assist devices are becoming an increasingly

39 r shortage for cardiac transplantation, left ventricular assist devices are frequently serving as a s

40 ugal pump in patients requiring an implanted ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplan

41 logical changes after implantation of a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT).

42 Despite the ability of left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT-LVA

43 patients who received the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device, as compared with preapproval

44 lanted with the Berlin Heart EXCOR Pediatric ventricular assist device at 47 centers from May 2007 th

45 ients on ECMO at listing (50%) compared with ventricular assist device at listing (76%) or not on ECM

46 st device at listing (76%) or not on ECMO or ventricular assist device at listing (76%; P<0.0001).

47 past decade, including among patients with a ventricular assist device at listing; in 2010 and 2011,

48 AI in 232 patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist device at our institution.

49 erwent Tx from ECMO (3 years: 64%) versus on ventricular assist device at Tx (3 years: 84%) or not on

50 t device at Tx (3 years: 84%) or not on ECMO/ventricular assist device at Tx (3 years: 85%; P<0.0001)

51 ing mechanical circulatory support with left ventricular assist devices at various points in the traj

52 med concurrently during implantation of left ventricular assist devices, but the added procedural ris

53 Potential heart transplantation/left ventricular assist device candidacy is suggested by >/=1

54 The MELD score identified left ventricular assist device candidates at high risk for pe

55 nd may offer similar prognostication in left ventricular assist device candidates with comparable deg

56 stress echocardiography in the areas of left ventricular assist devices, cardiac transplantation, str

57 approach to optimizing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) function and diagnos

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

59 tcomes in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs), stratified by ant

60 rified in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs).

61 rvival of patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs).

62 current state of short-term, continuous-flow ventricular assist devices (CF-VADs) in the treatment of

63 Continuous flow ventricular assist devices (cfVADs) provide a life-savin

64 ovements in outcomes in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices compared with patients implan

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

66 Most patients died within an hour of left ventricular assist device deactivation and all within 26

67 ucted a prospective, single-group trial of a ventricular assist device designed specifically for chil

68 ed caregiver before destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) implantation; howeve

69 Destination therapy left ventricular assist devices (DT LVADs) are one of the mos

70 The remaining 10% were supported with ventricular assist devices for an average of 38 (20-60)

71 acy, and role of different percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for hemodynamic support durin

72 s and </=18 months by a continuous flow left ventricular assist device from June 2006 to December 201

73 Registrants listed with paracorporeal ventricular assist devices had a higher risk of adverse

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

75 Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices have replaced first-generatio

76 Pediatric ventricular assist devices have significantly improved s

77 patients supported by a continuous flow left ventricular assist device (Heart Mate II) from June 2006

78 iplicate among 60 axial continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (HeartMate II) patients (30 in

79 were obtained from 4 patients without a left ventricular assist device (HF group: mean age, 58.3+/-8.

80 m repair (n = 12633), or a percutaneous left ventricular assist device implant (n = 1816) between Jan

81 2); age, 51+/-12 years) obtained during left ventricular assist device implantation and at explantati

82 occurred in 433 patients (21.7%) after left ventricular assist device implantation and was associate

83 ients with advanced heart failure undergoing ventricular assist device implantation are strongly infl

84 Mechanical unloading after left ventricular assist device implantation corrects systemic

85 Left ventricular assist device implantation improved whole-bo

86 c tissue of patients with HF undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation surgery.

87 sies of multiple HF patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation surgery.

88 median (25th-75th percentile) time from left ventricular assist device implantation to death was 14 (

89 ol-3 kinase/Akt signaling cascade after left ventricular assist device implantation was confirmed by

90 um of heart failure patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation were engineered t

91 hCPCs isolated from patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation were engineered t

92 s with aortic valve (AV) surgery before left ventricular assist device implantation were excluded fro

93 ult patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation with mainstream d

94 nts applied (eg, medication initiation, left ventricular assist device implantation), length of follo

95 ajor CV events (death, transplantation, left ventricular assist device implantation).

96 te end points (death/cardiac transplant/left ventricular assist device implantation).

97 s), 262 (68.6%) underwent isolated HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device implantation, 75 (19.6%) a con

98 rs for major cardiac events (mortality, left ventricular assist device implantation, and heart transp

99 After Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device implantation, lactate levels d

100 accounting for the competing risk of death, ventricular assist device implantation, or cardiac trans

101 ding episodes at 112 +/- 183 days after left ventricular assist device implantation, with 50% experie

102 mon complications after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

103 t biopsy samples of patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation.

104 tion of protein kinase C isoforms after left ventricular assist device implantation.

105 e end point of death/cardiac transplant/left ventricular assist device implantation.

106 ts or the apical LV core at the time of left ventricular assist device implantation.

107 y right-sided heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device implantation.

108 m from death, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation.

109 e surgical procedures, may be unsuitable for ventricular assist device implantation.

110 and 5 women needed heart transplantation or ventricular assist device implantation.

111 latory patients enrolled in INTERMACS before ventricular assist device implantation.

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

113 , compared with 381 HFHs, 139 deaths, and 17 ventricular assist device implantations and/or transplan

114 s: 47 deaths, 9 transplantations, and 6 left ventricular assist device implantations over 4 years.

115 Mechanical support with left ventricular assist device improved all of these metaboli

116 st that Berlin Heart EXCOR Pediatric (EXCOR) ventricular assist device improves waiting list survival

117 fficacy of the Impella-2.5-percutaneous left-ventricular assist device in patients with cardiogenic s

118 Data from patients receiving the HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device in the ADVANCE bridge to trans

119 ry end point of death/urgent transplantation/ventricular assist device in the derivation cohorts and

120 ergoing VT ablation with a percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in 6 centers in the United St

121 The use of left ventricular assist devices in treating patients with end

122 f Staphylococcus aureus associated with left ventricular assist device infection and prosthetic valve

123 left ventricular tissue obtained during left ventricular assist device insertion (heart failure sampl

124 necessitating aggressive immunosuppression, ventricular assist device insertion, or cardiac transpla

125 Before left ventricular assist device insertion, patient age was 35.

126 uggest that the Berlin Heart EXCOR Pediatric ventricular assist device is superior to extracorporeal

127 e complex trade-offs of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices is challenging and made more

128 ther results with the HeartMate (HM) II left ventricular assist device (LVAD) (Thoratec Corporation,

129 orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT), left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination therapy

130 database for primary implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) between June 23, 2006,

131 points after mechanical unloading by a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) by small RNA sequencing

132 istory of ischemic cardiomyopathy after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) endocarditis caused by

133 Destination therapy with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has the potential to ef

134 Timing of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in advance

135 precursor cells (MPCs) injected during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation may contri

136 The effect of DM on post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation outcomes i

137 emergency heart transplantation, 1 had left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, and 1 pat

138 ght-ventricular failure (RVF) following left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

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

140 y was to determine renal outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

141 le of tricuspid valve annuloplasty with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

142 cting RV failure in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

143 A left ventricular assist device (LVAD) improves survival and q

144 ) II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in a commercial setting

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

146 Reports of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) malfunction have focuse

147 hock patients to receive an implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplant, or

148 rapy, defibrillators, and adjustment of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) parameters.

149 athy (NICM) have shown that a subset of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients can achieve si

150 this study was to determine outcomes in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients older than age

151 te to positive or negative outcomes for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients remains unclea

152 flammation in human subjects undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement as a bridge t

153 After left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement for advanced

154 atients with end-stage HF who underwent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement were studied.

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

156 Implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) reverses some of the me

157 hythmias (VAs) while on continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support has not been we

158 Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support is a common and

159 MII) (Thoratec, Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support.

160 splasia develops during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support.

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

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

163 The effect of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) unloading on cardiac en

164 longitudinal effects of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) unloading on myocardial

165 ced heart failure patients selected for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) were more likely to be

166 n patients with the HeartMate II (HMII) left ventricular assist device (LVAD), but the impact of AF o

167 ity in patients with end-stage HF after left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced remodeling to i

168 se animal data, the notion that chronic left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced unloading will

169 ssions after implantation of axial flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

170 arked after myocardial unloading with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

171 listed for transplant or scheduled for left ventricular assist device (LVAD; 60 patients), in patien

172 Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) as a bridge (BTT) to h

173 iac and respiratory failure with either left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) or extracorporeal memb

174 Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) provide cardiac suppor

175 ng early and late after implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD).

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

177 th decreased waitlist survival while on left ventricular assist device (LVADs) support and after HT.

178 is in patients with HeartMate II (HMII) left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) (Thoratec Corporation

179 orta from patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and directly measure

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

181 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being used in pat

182 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are being used with i

183 Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are given 30 days of

184 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly used

185 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are now widely accept

186 in response to mechanical unloading by left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has been demonstrated

187 f heart failure (HF) patients receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has decoupling of the

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

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

190 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used as an

191 Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have revolutionized a

192 s now exist that define deactivation of Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs) in futility as now de

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

194 ricular unloading after implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) on mitochondrial cont

195 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide better outcom

196 These early left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) suffered significant

197 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were developed as a m

198 Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), by providing signifi

199 tality in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

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

201 an uncommon, but severe complication of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).

202 Improved safety of left ventricular assist devices means that these are becoming

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

204 95% confidence interval, 2.9-11.4; P<0.01), ventricular assist device (odds ratio, 8.2; 95% confiden

205 rrent valve procedures and 85% for HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device only at 1 year; P=0.33).

206 t in an adult or pediatric patient who has a ventricular assist device or total artificial heart.

207 oles in the evaluation of patients with left ventricular assist devices or potential donors for cardi

208 defined outcome was freedom from death, left ventricular assist device, or heart transplantation over

209 ching to central bilateral centrifugal pump, ventricular-assist device, or total artificial heart.

210 review of Heartmate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients at 2 centers from Jan

211 otic therapy identifies continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients at major risk for CVA

212 the aortic stenosis rabbit model and in left ventricular assist device patients demonstrated that ind

213 One in every 10 left ventricular assist device patients demonstrates partial

214 ed device thrombosis in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients varies widely, rangin

215 e analysis evaluated 51 continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients who received secondar

216 Importantly, 9% of all left ventricular assist device patients who were not explante

217 METHODS AND Thirty HeartWare ventricular assist device patients with stable renal fun

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

219 l of dabigatran versus phenprocoumon in left ventricular assist device patients.

220 A basic understanding of left ventricular assist device physiology is essential to the

221 nts died; 99 were transplanted; and 31 had a ventricular assist device placed.

222 d a previous GI bleeding history before left ventricular assist device placement (33% versus 5%; P=0.

223 g risk of death, cardiac transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement in comparison to an

224 hazard ratio for death, transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement in HF-REF patients w

225 lowed for death, cardiac transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement over a median follow

226 lure, heart failure-related hospitalization, ventricular assist device placement, cardiac transplanta

227 e time of coronary artery revascularization, ventricular assist device placement, or heart transplant

228 support with a microaxial percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) on renal function afte

229 investigate the effects of percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) support during cathete

230 Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVADs) are increasingly bei

231 transfusion by surgery type (excluding left ventricular assist device procedures/transplant) (HR: 1.

232 Left ventricular assist devices prolong the lives of patients

233 Current-generation left ventricular assist devices provide circulatory support t

234 olutions per minute) in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device pump speed from a maximum of 1

235 the efficacy and safety of the percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) in patients in severe r

236 Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs) are being increasingl

237 ctuarial survival after continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices ranged from 56% to 87% at 1 y

238 Patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device receiving secondary prophylaxi

239 o outcomes for contemporary destination left ventricular assist device recipients.

240 ]) for endpoint events, defined as death/HTx/ventricular assist device requirement, was evaluated in

241 alization are at high risk for death or left ventricular assist device rescue.

242 (cardiac transplantation, implantation of a ventricular assist device, resuscitation after sudden ca

243 ant risk factors associated with early right ventricular assist device (RVAD) use in patients undergo

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

245 ocardiography are essential to optimize left ventricular assist device settings and cardiac performan

246 Registrants supported with paracorporeal ventricular assist devices should be listed status 1A in

247 he totality of data for continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices show consistent improvements

248 lure receiving mechanical unloading via left ventricular assist devices show increased CTCF abundance

249 e the reversibility of these defects by left ventricular assist device suggests metabolic resilience

250 14% vs. 22%, p = 0.03), required more right ventricular assist device support (19% vs. 11% vs. 6%, p

251 atients despite more frequent need for right ventricular assist device support and increased bleeding

252 ence of bleeding during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support and to identify potent

253 of myocardial recovery on contemporary left ventricular assist device support are poorly defined bec

254 ients with >/=1 serious adverse event during ventricular assist device support as those without an ev

255 TN patients listed status 1A who were not on ventricular assist device support at transplant (89.3%;

256 sk, higher DOPBP during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support was significantly asso

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

258 ty and mortality during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support yet their relation to

259 or blocker usage during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support, and a more prevalent

260 Thoratec Corp., Pleasanton, California) left ventricular assist device support, with focus on the sub

261 rt transplant patients not transplanted with ventricular assist device support.

262 ed as a complication of continuous flow left ventricular assist device support; however, its long-ter

263 vents are common during continuous flow left ventricular assist device support; yet, their relation t

264 In failing left ventricular assist device-supported hearts, S100A1 and s

265 ular hypertrophy), failing, and failing left ventricular assist device-supported hearts.

266 Left ventricular assist device-supported patients are usually

267 Approximately one-third of left ventricular assist device-supported patients experience

268 ted to improved outcomes with long-term left ventricular assist device technology, but have also led

269 val rates were significantly higher with the ventricular assist device than with ECMO.

270 Among subjects with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices, the restoration of pulsatile

271 e technologies is critical to the success of ventricular assist device therapy and the health of pati

272 Contemporary ventricular assist device therapy results in a high rate

273 t of patients with advanced HF evaluated for ventricular assist device therapy.

274 of LVADs (79% HeartMate XVE, 21% Implantable Ventricular Assist Device [Thoratec Corporation]) for th

275 lysis analysis of data sites discussing left ventricular assist device treatment for heart failure.

276 d mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device, treatment with the interleuki

277 ears) with Heartmate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices underwent hemodynamic and sym

278 pecific combination of drug therapy and left ventricular assist device unloading results in significa

279 sCVD, ventilator use, and ventricular assist device use were the most important pr

280 hat allows long-term cardiac stability after ventricular assist device (VAD) explantation is a major

281 severe heart failure patients at the time of ventricular assist device (VAD) placement would differen

282 dpoint of death, cardiac transplantation, or ventricular assist device (VAD) placement; and 2) cardia

283 diopulmonary exercise testing without HTx or ventricular assist device (VAD) support was compared wit

284 rt failure include heart transplantation and ventricular assist device (VAD) therapy.

285 We evaluated a continuous-flow external ventricular assist device (VAD), CentriMag VAD (Thoratec

286 es of patients with AMI who received durable ventricular assist devices (VAD).

287 costs among Medicare beneficiaries receiving ventricular assist devices (VADs) and associations betwe

288 With improving hemodynamics and durability, ventricular assist devices (VADs) are being implanted wi

289 Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are increasingly being

290 Ventricular assist devices (VADs) have revolutionized he

291 Ventricular assist devices (VADs) improve survival and q

292 ated considerably in the past 10 years, with ventricular assist devices (VADs) reaching an impressive

293 modynamic correction through implantation of ventricular assist devices (VADs) would reverse adipocyt

294 ythmias in patients supported with long-term ventricular assist devices (VADs).

295 ernatives to heart transplantation is use of ventricular assist devices (VADs).

296 ns involving prosthetic materials, including ventricular assist devices (VADs).

297 bined outcome of mortality/urgent transplant/ventricular assist device were modestly increased in the

298 ned end points of death, transplant, or left ventricular assist device were tracked during 4 years.

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

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