コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 atients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
2 of which correlated with improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction.
3 th a smaller improvement in post-PVR RV/left ventricular ejection fraction.
4 nts with >/=3+ primary MR and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.
5 graphy total defect score, but not with left ventricular ejection fraction.
6 al, 1.09-2.07), but not with decline in left ventricular ejection fraction.
7 ict outcomes at least as effectively as left ventricular ejection fraction.
8 ury was already detectable in preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.
9 stion, but no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction.
10 risk for death/VT, even with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.
11 ms or unspecific symptoms and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.
12 al in symptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
13 mproves cardiac function with augmented left ventricular ejection fraction.
14 c arrest do not have a markedly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
15 occur in the setting of more preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.
16 icularly in those with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
17 patients with chronic HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction.
18 anch block) wide QRS complex, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction.
19 t Association class I), despite similar left ventricular ejection fractions.
20 e gadolinium enhancement, and left and right ventricular ejection fractions.
21 with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction, 0.24+/-0.09) were randomi
22 f SCD were 3.07 (2.29-4.11) for reduced left ventricular ejection fraction; 1.85 (1.36-2.52) for mitr
23 class III/IV: 55% versus 15%, P<0.001; left ventricular ejection fraction: 26+/-10% versus 36+/-16%,
26 e, 53 +/- 12 years, range, 16-73 years; left ventricular ejection fraction, 27 +/- 14%) underwent fra
27 ents with VT/VF had significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction (28.3% versus 29.5%; P<0.0
28 secutive patients (median age 68 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30%) were studied (6 month
29 male; 73% ischemic cardiomyopathy; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 31%; 68% with multiple un
30 ents (121 men), aged 67.4+/-11.9 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 33.1+/-13.6% (n=137), and
31 chaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, who had left ventricular ejection fraction 35% or less, an automatic
34 Patients with RV dysfunction had poorer left ventricular ejection fractions (42% versus 69%), higher
35 V, 72 patients undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 +/- 17.4% vs. 55.3 +
36 lar ejection fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 45+/-6%), RV dysfunction
37 ents (39%; 73% men; age, 41+/-25 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 49+/-16%) with high incide
38 owed significantly reduced LV systolic (left ventricular ejection fraction = 49+/-10% versus 58+/-10%
39 ric acid (8.2 +/- 2.6 mg/dL), decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (50% median; range, 10%-70
40 reduced LV systolic function (mean+/-SD left ventricular ejection fraction = 52+/-11% versus 63+/-8%;
41 ms; P<0.05), followed by a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (54+/-6 versus 63+/-5%; P<
42 atients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD
43 rmal electrocardiography, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, a reliable diagnostic too
44 , both of whom had normalization of the left ventricular ejection fraction after discontinuation of t
47 clinical variables and those including left ventricular ejection fraction and b-type natriuretic pep
49 Russia/Georgia patients also had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and creatinine but higher
50 gnificantly with MR imaging measures of left ventricular ejection fraction and end-systolic volume, b
51 would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms
52 nt effect was observed in the change in left ventricular ejection fraction and infarct size, and the
54 ed the overall effect of CSC therapy on left ventricular ejection fraction and performed meta-regress
57 donormal age-matched groups with normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and (2) distinguish betwe
58 ates, including comorbidities, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, and antecedent myocardial
59 fter adjusting for the TIMI Risk Score, left ventricular ejection fraction, and B-type natriuretic pe
62 parameters-late gadolinium enhancement, left ventricular ejection fraction, and especially right vent
63 ven after adjustment for comorbidities, left ventricular ejection fraction, and functional heart fail
64 uretic peptide and uric acid, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, and increased relative wa
67 diseases, less pronounced reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction, and lower brain natriuret
68 mellitus, ischemic heart disease, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and more recent onset HF
69 variate model, older age, anemia, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and presence of left vent
70 class III or IV heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and prolonged QRS duratio
72 lmonary arterial compliance, depressed right ventricular ejection fraction, and shorter life expectan
73 ccurrence of atrial arrhythmias and low left ventricular ejection fraction, as estimated using multiv
74 tients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction assigned to spironolactone
75 ular ejection fraction, and especially right ventricular ejection fraction-associated with prognosis.
77 p exhibited significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction at 3, 6, and 12 months of
80 SE=0.23), % females (B=-0.38, SE=0.04), left ventricular ejection fraction (B=-0.81, SE=0.20), and bo
81 alloon aortic valvuloplasty, had higher left ventricular ejection fraction, better cognitive function
82 thy (prior bypass surgery in all cases; left ventricular ejection fraction between 25% and 30%) and w
83 ase free, which included measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction by multigated acquisition
86 ltivariable associate of the changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (coefficient, -2.12; 95% c
87 rences were found for global changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (control -9.6+/-1.3% versu
88 d with differential functional outcome (left ventricular ejection fraction day 21: permanent ligation
89 al study was to compare the accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction derived from intrinsic fre
90 iable model including respiratory rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes mellitus, and GR
93 In addition, many patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction die of nonsudden causes of
94 desartan protects against a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction during or shortly after tr
95 (LG/LF) aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has been described as
98 d the incremental value of considering right ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of futu
99 ovides incremental value in addition to left ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of sudd
100 rastuzumab group had a > 10% decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from baseline to a value <
101 e (from 80.7 to 85.5 mg/d; P = .57) and left ventricular ejection fraction (from 62% to 62.3%; P = .0
102 and 21% of subjects with NICM achieved left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40% (p = 0.034).
105 0 years of age, with symptomatic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction >/=45%, were enrolled in T
107 n positron emission tomography and with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were followed (median
108 rden were measured in 205 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >50% and extracardiac sarc
109 III, exercise capacity <80% of normal, left ventricular ejection fraction >50%, and diastolic dysfun
110 Association functional class II to III, left ventricular ejection fraction >50%, diastolic dysfunctio
111 ng (UNOS) database with preserved donor left ventricular ejection fraction (>/=50%) and where peak do
112 atients given placebo, and decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction (>/=grade 2) in 19 (1%) an
113 (63+/-14 years, 60% men) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>60%) and chronic moderat
114 in trials with systematic collection of left ventricular ejection fraction had a C index of 0.77.
115 atients with progressive decline of the left ventricular ejection fraction had a worse prognosis.
117 f patients with severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction have Vmax in this range, w
118 ility (hazard ratio 0.198; P=0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (hazard ratio 0.916; P=0.0
120 atients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an independ
121 , estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, high-sensitivity C-reacti
122 HFPEF despite pharmacological therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction higher than 40%, and a rai
123 ion (HR 8.13, 95% CI 4.09-12.16), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.98
124 d ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.28-2.69), left ventricular ejection fraction (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.
126 4 patients (average age: 63+/-15 years; left ventricular ejection fraction in 27+/-9%; cardiogenic sh
127 t disease show a similar improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction in large animal models of
128 vealed a significantly decreased global left ventricular ejection fraction in parallel with increased
129 months, there was a greater increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients taking ivabrad
130 icative for the subsequent worsening of left ventricular ejection fraction in permanent ligation mice
133 with low-gradient (LG) AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, including paradoxical low
135 n patient subgroups defined by abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction, increased respiratory rat
136 n, neither H/M results, BNP levels, nor left ventricular ejection fraction interacted with ICD use in
137 iction algorithm composed of RBP4, TTR, left ventricular ejection fraction, interventricular septal d
138 n patients with severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction irrespective of symptoms.
139 ly after CABG among patients with a low left ventricular ejection fraction is highest between the fir
141 lthough usually associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, isolated RV systolic dysf
142 a under the curve of 0.87 when added to left ventricular ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection
143 stolic volume, LV end-diastolic volume, left ventricular ejection fraction, left atrial volume, and L
144 hypertension, systolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass ind
145 and were more likely to present with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30% compared wit
146 after adjustment for confounders, only left ventricular ejection fraction less than 45%, atrial fibr
148 bserved with either treatment, although left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% occurred in
150 Two hundred sixty-one patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=35% and New York Heart
151 o=1354) patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction </=35%, 918 received care
152 lators are indicated in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction </=35%, QRS width >/=130 m
154 elatives identified 5 individuals with right ventricular ejection fraction </=40% after Fontan operat
155 onischemic cardiomyopathy patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% and absent hyperenh
156 onischemic cardiomyopathy patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% and absent hyperenh
157 ed for cardiac decompensation and had a left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% before discharge.
158 ssociation functional class II-III, and left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% were screened for t
159 iagnosis of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%) and previous resid
161 igned 253 patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%, and serum uric aci
164 We studied patients with systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction </=45%) and mild to modera
166 mptom class I to III heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction </=50% to biventricular or
167 ntricular systolic dysfunction (LVD) (= left ventricular ejection fraction </=50%), and end-stage hea
168 hronic kidney disease, pulmonary edema, left ventricular ejection fraction <20%, and peripheral arter
169 dence interval, 1.06-3.85; P=0.03), and left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (OR, 1.83; 95% confid
170 are hampered by over-reliance on global left ventricular ejection fraction <35% as the most important
171 w York Heart Association II to III, and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% within the past 6 mon
172 istry and divided them into SHIFT type (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, New York Heart Assoc
173 Patients with flow-limiting CAD, left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, or revascularization
174 , in the echocardiographic subcohort, a left ventricular ejection fraction <50% was present in only 1
175 n class II-IV heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<45%) were screened for d
176 domly assigned 60 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%) and elevated C-reac
177 rdiac conduction disturbance (81%), low left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%; 45%), atrial arrhyt
178 ith symptomatic systolic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, </=35%) not caused by cor
179 ed risk of mortality (lowest quartile: right ventricular ejection fraction, <40%; hazard ratio, 4.4 [
180 fidence interval, 1.4-13.5]; P=0.01 and left ventricular ejection fraction, <50%; hazard ratio, 6.6 [
181 eft ventricular (LV) systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction), LV diastolic function (e
182 se variables associated with death were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) </=45% (hazard rati
184 vely reviewed patients with obesity and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% who underwent
185 22.9 g vs. 28.1 g; p = 0.06) and higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (48.3% vs. 43.9%; p
186 l coupling, and their associations with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure s
189 ndpoint was absolute change in 12-month left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricula
190 ith grade III+ chronic AR and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the value of ao
191 ymptomatic aortic stenosis have reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before transcathete
193 nt of cardiac end points or significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) drop was associated
195 study, we report outcome and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a large cohort o
197 ubset of patients with HF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) previously had redu
200 ve incidence of cardiac events (CE) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were evaluated in 1
201 t trial, 42 patients with MF and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were randomized (1:
202 velocity (E/e') ratio, had the highest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and were predomina
203 assessment included 3-dimensional (3D) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudina
204 lar remodeling, as commonly measured by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is associated with
211 identified 472 donor hearts with LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=40%) on initial
213 -recommended treatment for HF (n = 525; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] of 33 +/- 9%; 66 +/
215 bserved with echocardiography (baseline left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 61%; global longit
216 cardioverter defibrillator at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], and proportion of
218 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, left ventricular ejection fraction, mean resting aortic valve
220 ean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, left ventricular ejection fraction, mitral effective regurgit
222 A II and III (n=1254) NYHA IV had lower left ventricular ejection fraction; more had diabetes mellitu
223 Measures of primary interest included left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial edema (multiec
224 mias, brain natriuretic peptide levels, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial perfusion, and
225 raditional cardiovascular risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial scar and ische
227 rinsic frequencies noninvasively versus left ventricular ejection fraction obtained with cardiac MRI,
228 In patients with THV thrombosis, a left ventricular ejection fraction of <35% was present in 3 (
229 s II-IV symptoms of heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.35 or less due to an
231 nonischemic in 13 patients with a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 17%+/-5% before LVAD im
233 fety of levosimendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who were un
234 was 32+/-12% (range, 6-54%) with mean right ventricular ejection fraction of 48+/-15% (range, 7-78%)
235 cology Group performance status of 0-2, left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, and adequ
236 rformance status of 0-1, and a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55% (by echoca
237 rmance status score of 0 or 1; a normal left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%; adequate
238 Five (13%) patients had decreases in left-ventricular ejection fraction, of which three (8%) were
240 , myocardial fibrosis risk factors, and left ventricular ejection fraction or myocardial mass index (
242 III/IV symptoms, transaortic gradient, left ventricular ejection fraction, or procedural characteris
246 ostial lesions (p = 0.049) and impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.019) were independe
247 increase of 3.9%+/-1.0% in cardiac MRI left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001) and 2.4+/-0.9 mL
248 enhancement area (P<0.0001), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001) because of an in
249 ubjects with HIV infection had 6% lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001), 7% higher myoca
251 elative area change was associated with left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.045) and ventricular-
252 D implantation predicted high post-LVAD left ventricular ejection fractions (P<0.01) and ejection fra
253 demonstrated substantial improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (partial recovery) and had
254 rences in spirometry, lung volumes, and left ventricular ejection fraction, patients with hypocapnia
255 Cox regression model that included age, left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS duration, and QRSp, o
257 ut did not correlate significantly with left ventricular ejection fraction (r = -0.216, P = .252) or
258 owever, PPM is associated with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction recovery post-transcathete
260 sibility was associated with change in right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF, rho=0.39, P<0.0001)
262 cell therapy was defined by changes in left ventricular ejection fraction, systolic/diastolic volume
263 cardiac conduction disturbance and low left ventricular ejection fraction, than those with missense
264 arent rapid and spontaneous recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction, the long-term clinical an
266 th severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing exercise stress
267 disease and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undertook, after careful t
269 n age was 64 years, 75% were male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32%, and peak VO2 was
270 hemic dilated cardiomyopathy), the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32+/-12% (range, 6-54%
273 was 70 years (range, 45-71 years), mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 51% (+/-17%), and 32%
275 all, by cardiac magnetic resonance the right ventricular ejection fraction was 60+/-8%, pulmonary reg
279 t of normal, 4.18 vs 6.59; P = .02) and left ventricular ejection fraction was higher (mean [SD], 43.
281 In contrast, no female died and their left ventricular ejection fraction was only moderately affect
282 We observed that the improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly greater
285 Impaired ventricular function (right or left ventricular ejection fraction) was associated with incre
287 extracardiac sarcoidosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, we sought to (1) determin
288 th severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, we sought to assess incre
290 in I levels in the setting of preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were not associated with i
291 right ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular ejection fraction were preserved after hTPV
292 lmonary edema, cardiac enlargement, and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly (P<0.05
293 mary mitral regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent mitral valve
294 h placebo among patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing cardia
295 mary mitral regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, who underwent mitral valv
296 equency methods can be used to document left ventricular ejection fraction with accuracy comparable w
297 generate almost continuous analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction without arterial cannulati
298 ent were increasing age, lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, worse post-procedural mit
299 esence of mitral regurgitation, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, younger age, and diabetes
300 included cable externalization, higher left ventricular ejection fraction, younger age, higher body
WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。