戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

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 region yields similar or better responses to biventricular pacing.
2 ed cardiomyopathy, which can be prevented by biventricular pacing.
3 and 6 months following CRT, with and without biventricular pacing.
4 ure/LVESV index) at 70, 90, and 110 beats of biventricular pacing.
5 luence of ectopic beats on the percentage of biventricular pacing.
6 gned to standard right ventricular pacing or biventricular pacing.
7  whether these patients benefit from upfront biventricular pacing.
8 ds high energy utilization due to continuous biventricular pacing.
9 te adequate LV lead positions and continuous biventricular pacing.
10  magnitude of benefit was observed with >92% biventricular pacing.
11 ation or atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing.
12 with no other minimally invasive options for biventricular pacing.
13 e halfway value of VAQRS during simultaneous biventricular pacing (53% of cases) was associated with
14 ranch pacing versus His bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing and conventional right ventricular
15        QRS duration at baseline, during HBP, biventricular pacing, and HOT-CRT was measured.
16 r rate limit, percent atrial pacing, percent biventricular pacing, and implant year.
17  advances over the past year related to (1). biventricular pacing as a treatment for dilated myopathy
18 re, with native conduction (LBBB) and during biventricular pacing at atrioventricular (AV) delays of
19                                              Biventricular pacing at AV delays of 120 ms generated a
20 -Opt, against LBBB as reference; BiV-Opt and biventricular pacing at AV delays of 120 ms were not sig
21                                              Biventricular pacing at AV delays of 40 ms was no differ
22 y were performed without pacing, with LV and biventricular pacing at optimal atrioventricular delay.
23                     In comparison with LBBB, biventricular pacing at separately preidentified hemodyn
24  followed by 3 weeks of resynchronization by biventricular pacing at the same pacing rate (CRT).
25 eeks (DHF) or 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks of biventricular pacing at the same rate (CRT).
26 ted in sinus rhythm and during atrial sensed biventricular pacing (BiV).
27 al fibrillation (AF), assessed its impact on biventricular pacing (BIVP%), and determined whether AF
28 whether physiologic pacing by either cardiac biventricular pacing (BiVP) or His bundle pacing (HisBP)
29 quences of left ventricular pacing (LVP) and biventricular pacing (BiVP).
30 area pacing (LBBAP) may be an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization
31  heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac
32           This study assessed the effects of biventricular pacing (BVP) on ventricular function, func
33                         We hypothesized that biventricular pacing, by restoring left ventricular (LV)
34 tion of the left ventricle, as occurs during biventricular pacing, can facilitate the development of
35                       The landmark trials of biventricular pacing (cardiac resynchronization therapy
36 ricular activation patterns, including atrio-biventricular pacing, conduction system pacing by His-bu
37 e mechanical benefits and in fine-tuning the biventricular pacing configuration and protocol, little
38 vements in interventricular synchrony during biventricular pacing correlate with acute improvements i
39         We sought to test the postulate that biventricular pacing diminishes the need for appropriate
40  proarrhythmia; P<0.01), requiring temporary biventricular pacing discontinuation in half of cases.
41 one quarter of mild HF patients eligible for biventricular pacing experience S-LVRR.
42 iac structure and function are improved with biventricular pacing for patients with atrioventricular
43 , as compared with 160 of 349 (45.8%) in the biventricular-pacing group.
44              The percentage of patients with biventricular pacing &gt;/=92% was similar in both groups (
45                Patients randomly assigned to biventricular pacing had a significantly lower incidence
46                                              Biventricular pacing has been introduced to resynchroniz
47 influence of ectopic beats on the success of biventricular pacing has not been well established.
48                                         When biventricular pacing improves LV contraction and relaxat
49 ardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing improves symptoms and functional ca
50                                              Biventricular pacing in heart failure (HF) improves surv
51               However, little is known about biventricular pacing in HF patients with atrioventricula
52 erior to atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure who
53 elay achieves similar or greater benefits to biventricular pacing in such patients.
54 nce for optimizing outcomes related to RV or biventricular pacing in the pacemaker and ICD population
55 diac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through biventricular pacing is an effective treatment for heart
56                                              Biventricular pacing is being combined with ICD function
57           However, the appropriate amount of biventricular pacing is ill-defined.
58                         A high percentage of biventricular pacing is required for optimal outcome in
59 nderwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing, lead dislodgment was found in one
60  activation of the LV wall, as occurs during biventricular pacing, leads to a prominent increase in Q
61 rnate RV pacing sites, minimizing RV pacing, biventricular pacing, left ventricular (LV) pacing, and
62                                              Biventricular pacing, left ventricular assist devices, a
63 dramatically increase the probability of low biventricular pacing (&lt;97%), with reduced CRT efficacy b
64                                          (4) Biventricular pacing may be beneficial in some patients
65 ort this observation, and raise concern that biventricular pacing may be proarrhythmic in select case
66 single-site RV or left ventricular pacing or biventricular pacing may be superior to RVA pacing.
67                                              Biventricular pacing may promote a more coordinated vent
68 difference, - 46 ms; 95% CI - 60, - 33), and biventricular pacing (mean difference, - 19 ms; 95% CI -
69                         We evaluated whether biventricular pacing might reduce mortality, morbidity,
70            Except for resynchronization with biventricular pacing, no medical therapies have been sho
71 nderwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing; none were lost to follow-up at 6 m
72 oventricular block and systolic dysfunction, biventricular pacing not only reduces the risk of mortal
73 a molecular pathway for regulation of INa by biventricular pacing of the failing heart.
74 m data are needed to determine the effect of biventricular pacing on survival.
75            The primary performance endpoint, biventricular pacing on the 12-lead electrocardiogram at
76                                              Biventricular pacing (or cardiac resynchronization thera
77 ilure and suggested that atrial-synchronized biventricular pacing, or cardiac resynchronization thera
78 d significantly narrowed to 162+/-17 ms with biventricular pacing ( P=0.003), to 151+/-24 ms during H
79 nderwent atrioventricular-node ablation with biventricular pacing; P<0.001), a longer 6-minute-walk d
80            The probability of subsequent low biventricular pacing percentage (<97%) was increased 3-f
81 ased ectopic beats reduce the chance of high biventricular pacing percentage and are associated with
82 -defibrillator device with data available on biventricular pacing percentage and pre-implantation 24-
83 remained paroxysmal in 69.5%, did not reduce biventricular pacing percentage.
84 ization achieved through atrial-synchronized biventricular pacing produces clinical benefits in patie
85       Subjects were grouped based on percent biventricular pacing quartiles with the use of Kaplan-Me
86 overter-defibrillator therapy alone (without biventricular pacing) results in a significant reduction
87                           Lifespan gain from biventricular pacing rises nonlinearly with time.
88                                Patients with biventricular pacing showed greater improvement in NYHA
89                                              Biventricular pacing significantly reduced LV volume ind
90 der sinus rhythm or with left ventricular or biventricular pacing/stimulation at the same heart rate.
91                          Left ventricular or biventricular pacing/stimulation can acutely improve sys
92 lar resynchronization by left ventricular or biventricular pacing/stimulation in DCM patients with le
93 D device as part of the VENTAK CHF/CONTAK CD Biventricular Pacing study were analyzed.
94 in the Ventak CHF (congestive heart failure) biventricular pacing study.
95 lar tachyarrhythmia induction as a result of biventricular pacing support this observation, and raise
96 ned in 50 patients implanted with the InSync biventricular pacing system who were randomized to thera
97 res including more sophisticated sensors and biventricular pacing systems.
98 is analysis was to determine the appropriate biventricular pacing target in patients with heart failu
99                                              Biventricular pacing to improve ventricular contractilit
100 harmacologic therapy (OPT) alone or OPT with biventricular pacing to provide cardiac resynchronizatio
101              We conducted a meta-analysis of biventricular pacing trials to calculate lifespan gained
102                                              Biventricular pacing using right ventricular (RV) and le
103 his at-risk patient population by performing biventricular pacing via a wireless left ventricular (LV
104 permanent atrial fibrillation; particularly, biventricular pacing was superior compared with conventi
105                                              Biventricular pacing was superior to conventional right
106 ients with LV enlargement using conventional biventricular pacing with single-site LV pacing, but be
107 rovement in the CCI slope during incremental biventricular pacing, with a positive force-frequency re
108                         We hypothesized that biventricular pacing would improve synchrony of right ve
109 cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing would reduce the risk of death or h
110                                              Biventricular pacing yielded less change (+12.8+/-9.3% i

 
Page Top