ライフサイエンスコーパス: cardiac resynchronization

1 endocardial stimulation strategy to achieve cardiac resynchronization.

2 Such changes can be reversed by cardiac resynchronization.

3 ion and in whom there are no indications for cardiac resynchronization, bradycardia support or antita

4 red leadless pacemakers that address various cardiac resynchronization challenges.

5 nical trials have demonstrated a benefit for cardiac resynchronization (CRT) and implantable cardiove

6 Cardiac resynchronization (CRT) prolongs survival in pat

7 The ICD/cardiac resynchronization defibrillator (CRT-D)-eligible

8 Ten patients with chronically implanted cardiac resynchronization devices underwent temporary LV

9 CRT among patients enrolled in the CARE-HF (Cardiac Resynchronization-Heart Failure) trial.

10 d Defibrillation in Heart Failure], CARE-HF (CArdiac REsynchronization-Heart Failure), MADIT-CRT [Mul

11 more had diabetes mellitus, kidney disease, cardiac resynchronization implantable cardioverter-defib

12 es (neurohormonal antagonists, diuretics and cardiac resynchronization in appropriate candidates).

13 The potential of cardiac resynchronization in appropriate patients requir

14 (Care-HF CArdiac Resynchronization in Heart Failure; NCT00170300)

15 focus on sudden cardiac death prevention and cardiac resynchronization, including published evidence

16 leaflets or their supporting structures (eg, cardiac resynchronization or transcatheter mitral valve

17 The cardiac resynchronization pacemaker (CRT-P)/CRT-D-eligib

18 Patients received a cardiac-resynchronization pacemaker or implantable cardi

19 ifferent in patients with and without active cardiac resynchronization therapy (-0.7 minutes [95% con

20 d the quality of life (QOL) of patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and an implantab

21 d duration in echocardiographic responses to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and clinical out

22 linical trials have demonstrated benefit for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable

23 dyssynchrony indices to predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) appears to vary

24 Patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are at high risk

25 of mitral regurgitation (MR) reduction with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are complex, and

26 Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can improve left

27 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can improve vent

28 A prolonged PR interval is common among cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates; howe

29 ricular (LV) pacing improves the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) compared with co

30 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases mortal

31 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivered via le

32 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) demands high ene

33 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantat

34 During cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantat

35 filling to the optimal hemodynamic effect in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) during adjustmen

36 s with congestive heart failure eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) either do not re

37 e electromechanical substrates responsive to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) from unresponsiv

38 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become a suc

39 phology and duration on the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been usually

40 The use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has increased si

41 e effect of reverse remodeling on APD during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been det

42 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has significant

43 The beneficial effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have been well e

44 hocardiographic predictors of response after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have largely inv

45 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves heart f

46 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcome

47 The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in clinical tria

48 icacy, safety, and long-term prognosis after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in elderly patie

49 Current guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in mild heart fa

50 V) ejection fraction and clinical outcome to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in mild heart fa

51 uency ablation improves effectiveness of the cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in nonresponders

52 e conflicting data regarding the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with

53 ed controlled trial evaluating the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with

54 The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with

55 Data regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with

56 trial (RAFT) study demonstrated that adding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected pati

57 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a major advan

58 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a potent trea

59 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an accepted t

60 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an establishe

61 Background Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an establishe

62 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important

63 The efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is associated wi

64 "Nonresponse" to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recognized, b

65 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the only hear

66 extend to patients with previously implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is unknown.

67 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is usually perfo

68 ining the criteria for patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may improve its

69 This study reports the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on hospitalizati

70 Benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on morbidity and

71 this study was to investigate the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on right ventric

72 vices included pacemakers (46%), ICDs (30%), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacemakers (4%),

73 Candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) receive either a

74 atory Heart Failure Trial) demonstrated that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced both mor

75 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces mortalit

76 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk

77 the left ventricular lead position (LVLP) on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response and cli

78 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) shortens APD com

79 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) studies in pedia

80 d- 1990s, a pacemaker-based treatment termed cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was developed to

81 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to inc

82 nt studies have cast doubt on the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with defibrillat

83 table cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with pacing capa

84 ed the hypothesis that patient selection for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) would be enhance

85 ials have established the average benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but estimating

86 for optimal outcome in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but the influen

87 myocardial substrate of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), in particular i

88 In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), optimization of

89 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the application

90 The mechanism of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-induced proarrhy

91 rk ICD trials, and many patients now receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

92 are poorly represented in clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

93 ction have ventricular dyssynchrony and seek cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

94 ics have been shown to influence response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

95 rtality), optimal medical therapy (OMT), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

96 of >/=120 ms as a condition for prescribing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

97 vere RV dysfunction have worse outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

98 ar (LV) dysfunction, successfully treated by cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

99 has been associated with reduced response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

100 s a useful method for predicting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

101 ntricular (LV) lead placement on outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

102 onic heart failure, but may be improved with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

103 with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

104 oexistent atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

105 criteria have suboptimal responses following cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

106 not demonstrate clinical improvement despite cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

107 ified as a predictor of positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

108 nts with reduced ejection fraction receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

109 ated with worse survival in those undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

110 t bundle branch block (LBBB) be treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); however, one-th

111 Whether adding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) to an implante

112 table cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (ICD-CRT) than in pati

113 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) and to cre

114 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) showed tha

115 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) study by Q

116 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) study.

117 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) Trial to d

118 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial who

119 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT), patients

120 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT).

121 The landmark trials of biventricular pacing (cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]) typically ran f

122 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

123 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

124 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT001802

125 ted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to Guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [TARGET] study); ISRCT

126 ry sinus lead implant or with nonresponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy and a suboptimal LV le

127 ith a new atrial lead placement as part of a cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator impl

128 e feasibility of implementation of AVNS in a cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator syst

129 did not influence the safety profile of the cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator syst

130 ence of implantable cardiac defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy and ejection fraction.

131 venous anatomy for optimal implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy and evaluation of left

132 ntly associated with long-term outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy and had additive progn

133 to address this challenge including improved cardiac resynchronization therapy and imaging technologi

134 Cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardio

135 medication for left ventricular dysfunction, cardiac resynchronization therapy and revascularization

136 Although the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy are well established i

137 Simple conceptual ideas about cardiac resynchronization therapy assume that biventricu

138 traventricular conduction delay treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy at our institution dur

139 ation, including those receiving concomitant cardiac resynchronization therapy between 2006 and 2010

140 ce understanding of the working mechanism of cardiac resynchronization therapy by comparing animal ex

141 duced activation and intrinsic conduction in cardiac resynchronization therapy by evaluating the acut

142 We investigated the electric mechanisms of cardiac resynchronization therapy by performing detailed

143 In 132 cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates with left b

144 rt disease and right bundle branch block, RV cardiac resynchronization therapy carried multiple posit

145 RV cardiac resynchronization therapy carried significant de

146 c separation (MES) would improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy compared with standard

147 As utilization of cardiac resynchronization therapy continues to grow, the

148 on fraction 25% to 45%, and not eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy could participate.

149 no survival benefit for patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D)

150 rade from VVIR stimulator (pacemaker, PM) to cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D).

151 anted implantable cardioverter defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (hazard

152 vival outcomes in patients with an ICD and a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator enrolled

153 e revision, replacement, upgrade, or initial cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implant.

154 ization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implante

155 Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator patients

156 P% independently correlate with mortality in cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator patients

157 stem upgrade or an initial implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator were ran

158 er implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, New Yor

159 than 20% of Medicare beneficiaries receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D)

160 ices included 38 dual-chamber pacemakers, 17 cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators, and 2

161 nsic right ventricular conduction in optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy delivery.

162 ; QRS, 181+/-25 ms; all mean+/-SD) underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation.

163 an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy device, and were based

164 confirmed, AVNS software was uploaded to the cardiac resynchronization therapy device, tested, and op

165 more comorbidity, and more often received a cardiac resynchronization therapy device.

166 Fewer single lead devices and more cardiac resynchronization therapy devices were used over

167 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, via the prema

168 ilure, and a QRS duration <120 milliseconds, cardiac resynchronization therapy did not improve clinic

169 We postulated that this effect might limit cardiac resynchronization therapy efficacy in patients w

170 e cardioverter defibrillator without or with cardiac resynchronization therapy enrolled in the Sensit

171 DS AND Enrolled patients had dual chamber or cardiac resynchronization therapy ICDs, history of >/=1

172 diac defibrillator implant and 37% underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy implant) were compared

173 acteristics, QLV/QRS duration (QLV ratio) at cardiac resynchronization therapy implant, and data abou

174 In contrast, women receiving a cardiac resynchronization therapy implantable cardiovert

175 , implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation, LVEF imp

176 e and left bundle-branch block scheduled for cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation.

177 A strategy of EG LV lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy improved patient outco

178 Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves mortality and

179 on, atrioventricular conduction disease, and cardiac resynchronization therapy in 68 (46%), 56 (38%),

180 hood of a response to medical therapy and to cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure.

181 ow early after defibrillator implantation or cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with chron

182 neficial in specific subpopulations, such as cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with inter

183 o compare the effects of active and inactive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with sever

184 rk studies of antiarrhythmic drugs, ICD, and cardiac resynchronization therapy in the primary and sec

185 with a low risk for clinical events without cardiac resynchronization therapy intervention.

186 ne of the reasons for patient nonresponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy is a suboptimal left v

187 Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy is most favorable in p

188 dy demonstrates clinical feasibility of dual cardiac resynchronization therapy lead delivery to optim

189 Finally, cardiac resynchronization therapy may be beneficial in c

190 ith a cardiac implantable electronic device (cardiac resynchronization therapy or implantable cardiov

191 ynchronization therapy defibrillators, and 2 cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing systems.

192 Data from a multicenter registry of 725 cardiac resynchronization therapy patients (median follo

193 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy patients by QRS morpho

194 Electric left ventricular lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients was a signifi

195 ared ICD versus no ICD, whereas one compared cardiac resynchronization therapy plus a defibrillator v

196 iovascular implantable electronic device and cardiac resynchronization therapy programming strategies

197 Cardiac resynchronization therapy prolongs survival in a

198 (Advance Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Registry [ADVANCE CRT]

199 international, ADVANCE CRT registry (Advance Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Registry).

200 onstrate normalized ejection fractions after cardiac resynchronization therapy remains unclear.

201 MES-guided placement of the RV lead improves cardiac resynchronization therapy responders compared wi

202 Optimal hemodynamic cardiac resynchronization therapy response coincides wit

203 in smaller hearts contributes to the better cardiac resynchronization therapy response in women.

204 been indicated as a prognostic parameter of cardiac resynchronization therapy response.

205 erstanding septal deformation and predicting cardiac resynchronization therapy response.

206 regional contractility, and thereby predict cardiac resynchronization therapy response.

207 ith an indication for permanent pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy that underwent LBBP fo

208 METHODS AND Forty consecutive patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy underwent intracardiac

209 Temporary RV cardiac resynchronization therapy was applied in the pre

210 Treatment with cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a

211 Moreover, cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a

212 t failure management with medical as well as cardiac resynchronization therapy when indicated is an e

213 timulation (PNS) is a common complication of cardiac resynchronization therapy when left ventricular

214 There is limited data on the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a cardioverter de

215 omplete left-sided reverse remodeling due to cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

216 ardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy with cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

217 th clinical outcomes in patients who receive cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

218 y symptomatic heart failure (HF) who receive cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

219 This study aimed to evaluate the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

220 (single-chamber, 19.8%; dual-chamber, 41.3%; cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator [

221 In heart failure patients undergoing either cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator o

222 ons in India who had class I indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy with an ICD and were u

223 of patients with both conditions who receive cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

224 Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

225 on delay) did not have clinical benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

226 isk of heart failure (HF) or death comparing cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

227 Data on the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

228 r ejection fraction (LVEF) super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

229 Treatment with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

230 of renal function on long-term outcomes with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator amo

231 428 patients at least 65 years old receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator fro

232 We compared outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator imp

233 Large-scale data on outcomes with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator in

234 In both GFR groups, cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator was

235 predicted outcomes; however, no benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator was

236 older patients with heart failure receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator, di

237 enal function, derive long-term benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator, wi

238 ion to implantable cardiac defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators de

239 sk was further attenuated in the subgroup of cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardi

240 205 patients with heart failure referred for cardiac resynchronization therapy with QRS >/=120 ms and

241 he hypothesis that an incremental benefit to cardiac resynchronization therapy would be gained by ech

242 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) data.

243 ay optimization of biventricular pacemakers (cardiac resynchronization therapy) may maximize hemodyna

244 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study patients with l

245 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study, the echocardio

246 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study.

247 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study.

248 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study.

249 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study.

250 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) with speckle-tracking

251 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy), 801 patients with an

252 onal classes I/II with medical treatment (or cardiac resynchronization therapy), including 6 patients

253 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

254 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

255 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

256 ization included impaired ejection fraction, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and institutional pra

257 of device monitoring, predicting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy, and the use of pacema

258 e reverse remodeling observed in women after cardiac resynchronization therapy, but this does not exp

259 implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy, consistent with evolv

260 iovascular implantable electronic devices or cardiac resynchronization therapy, given the natural his

261 evascularization, sex, diabetes, age, use of cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardiover

262 rior implantable cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy, or AF ablation.

263 ioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy, the subcutaneous ICD

264 mogeneous loading conditions, such as during cardiac resynchronization therapy, then triggers a rever

265 Several palliative options such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, tricuspid valve repai

266 Women are less likely to receive cardiac resynchronization therapy, yet, they are more re

267 Patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy-D were enrolled.

268 at women have better outcomes than men after cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D)

269 omized controlled trials have shown that the cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves

270 men have been under-represented in trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-D)

271 Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are ind

272 One main challenge related to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators is the

273 electrocardiographic selection criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

274 nts with normalized ejection fractions after cardiac resynchronization therapy.

275 a strong predictor of short-term response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

276 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy.

277 coronary sinus is the standard approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

278 patients with AF to maximize the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy.

279 a are accumulating on the benefit of HBP for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

280 r septal puncture is a feasible approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

281 for >=4 weeks; and no Class I indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

282 e improvement in LV pump function induced by cardiac resynchronization therapy.

283 zations and has implications for delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy.

284 e registry, and patients with versus without cardiac resynchronization therapy.

285 ns were confirmed in 5 patient responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

286 undle branch block may respond positively to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

287 CD) display a relatively limited response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

288 e coronary sinus is the mainstay approach of cardiac resynchronization therapy.

289 tivation, which may predict poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

290 te changes in RV function after temporary RV cardiac resynchronization therapy.

291 e role of intrinsic conduction in optimizing cardiac resynchronization therapy.

292 ant (20 patients), for stabilization pending cardiac resynchronization therapy/percutaneous coronary

293 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; NCT00180271).

294 er Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy; NCT00180271).

295 ted Left Ventricular Lead Placement to Guide Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy]), the LV lead was pos

296 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy], REVERSE [Resynchroni

297 Cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidit

298 DIT-CRT) showed that early intervention with cardiac-resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

299 urces on receipt of a heart failure therapy, cardiac-resynchronization therapy with defibrillation (C

300 Cardiac resynchronization using pacing devices is a stan