ライフサイエンスコーパス: LVEDV

1 volume (17%), baseline PCWP (18%), SV (12%), LVEDV (16%), V0 (33%), and orthostatic tolerance (24%) (

2 n = 369) and larger LVs defined as having an LVEDV of at least 113 mL (n = 381).

3 VEDV), with smaller LVs defined as having an LVEDV of less than 113 mL (n = 369) and larger LVs defin

4 was to assess the repeatability of LVEF and LVEDV from GBPS and to compare LVEF with those from PRNV

5 tware that automatically calculates LVEF and LVEDV.

6 defined as >=12% increase in both LVESV and LVEDV by cardiovascular magnetic resonance, was associat

7 remodeling [>=12% increase in both LVESV and LVEDV]) was compared.

8 ed, but dP/dV was reduced by 50% at baseline LVEDV, and cardiac mass tended to be reduced by 5% (P<.1

9 stiffness (dP/dV) was calculated at baseline LVEDV.

10 atients were dichotomized by median baseline LVEDV indexed to height (LVEDVI(Median)).

11 and LVEF (r = -0.60; P < 0.0001) and between LVEDV index and heart rate (r = -0.26; P < 0.001).

12 A significant relationship was seen between LVEDV index and LVEF (r = -0.60; P < 0.0001) and between

13 increase in left ventricular end-diastolic (LVEDV) and end-systolic volume (LVESV) as well as inters

14 The change in LVEDV in those with versus without concentric hypertroph

15 In the placebo group, there was no change in LVEDV over the course of follow-up (change of 0.0 +/- 10

16 ass and LV mass/volume(0.67)) with change in LVEDV.

17 VESV]; group 2: no LV remodeling [changes in LVEDV and LVESV <12%]; group 3: adverse LV remodeling wi

18 The decreases in LVEDV and LVESV caused by the AT1-ant were also partiall

19 mall, but significantly greater, increase in LVEDV after 7-year follow-up.

20 han 10% and to less than 50%, an increase in LVEDV by more than 10% and to higher than the normal ran

21 odeling with compensation [>=12% increase in LVEDV only]; and group 4: adverse LV remodeling [>=12% i

22 The mean reduction in LVEDV with CRT-D therapy at the 1-year follow-up was dir

23 abnormally low LVEF and 19% had an increased LVEDV index according to these test criteria.

24 Mean LVEDV at 4 months was 215.6 +/- 62.5 ml in the CTO PCI a

25 The mean LVEDV was 198 +/- 94 mL, with a mean difference of 9 +/-

26 rrelation with those obtained with cine MRI (LVEDV: r = 0.985, p < 0.001; LVESV: r = 0.994, p < 0.001

27 95% CI -5.7 mL; 2.1 mL; P = 0.001), but not LVEDV (P = 0.748), improved in the FCM vs. the SOC group

28 The measurements of LVEDV, LVESV, EF and LV mass obtained with real-time MRI

29 Repeatability of LVEDV measurements from GBPS is poor.

30 MI had little effect on LVEDV but caused a 98% increase in LVESV (from 11.3 to 2

31 rall benefit for CTO PCI in terms of LVEF or LVEDV.

32 The larger QRSarea/LVEDV ratio did not contribute to the better survival ob

33 odeling was attributed to the larger QRSarea/LVEDV ratio in women (25-fold change in B from 0.12 to 0

34 odeling was attributed to the larger QRSarea/LVEDV ratio in women (25-fold change in beta from 0.12 t

35 ich was even more pronounced for the QRSarea/LVEDV ratio (0.76 0.46 versus 0.57 0.34 uVs/mL; P<0.001)

36 ich was even more pronounced for the QRSarea/LVEDV ratio (0.76+/-0.46 versus 0.57+/-0.34 muVs/mL; P<0

37 Impact of the QRSarea/LVEDV ratio on the association between sex and LV revers

38 e using the LV end-diastolic volume (QRSarea/LVEDV).

39 0.0001) and significantly lower mean resting LVEDV index values (P < 0.0001).

40 rtrophy was associated with larger follow-up LVEDV (P</=0.01).

41 ge in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) by cardiovascu

42 ucing left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) compared with placebo in patients with HF and red

43 d-systolic (LVESV) and end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) from baseline to 3-month follow-up.

44 whose left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) had normalised, and who had an N-terminal pro-B-t

45 s for left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) index, left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVES

46 available baseline LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) measures, 188 received biventricular single-site

47 ) and left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging after 4 mon

48 , SV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and left ventricular mass (by echocardiography)

49 e.g., left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), Beta = 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.23

50 Left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular endsystolic volume (LVESV), eje

51 lic volume (LVESV), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV ejection fraction (LVEF), cardiac output, and

52 ge in left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), was analyzed in 3 prespecified LVEF groups: >30%

53 g to the median PET LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), with smaller LVs defined as having an LVEDV of l

54 e and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV).

55 ) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV; +10 mL, P < 0.001; [95% CI 6 to 13]), without alt

56 F > or = 41% in men and > or = 49% in women, LVEDV index < or = 76 mL/m2 in men and < or = 57 mL/m2 i