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

1 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

2 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

3 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

4 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

5 r Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

6 omatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

7 nts with normalized ejection fractions after cardiac resynchronization therapy.

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

9 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 used for improved selection of patients for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

18 that this lead location should be avoided in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

27 electrocardiographic selection criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

38 Cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardio

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

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

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

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

43 Simple conceptual ideas about cardiac resynchronization therapy assume that biventricu

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

45 The extent of cardiac resynchronization therapy benefit was similar fo

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

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

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

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

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

51 In 132 cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates with left b

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

53 RV cardiac resynchronization therapy carried significant de

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

61 onship between echocardiographic response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and the risk of

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

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

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

65 Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can improve left

66 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can improve vent

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

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

69 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) decreases mortal

70 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivered via le

71 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) demands high ene

72 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantat

73 During cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantat

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

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

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

77 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become a suc

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

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

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

81 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has significant

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

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

84 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves heart f

85 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

96 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a major advan

97 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a potent trea

98 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an accepted t

99 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an establishe

100 Background Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an establishe

101 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important

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

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

104 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the only hear

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

106 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is usually perfo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

114 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces mortalit

115 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk

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

117 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) shortens APD com

118 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) studies in pedia

119 of prospective randomized clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) versus implantab

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

121 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was shown to inc

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

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

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

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

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

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

128 In cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), optimization of

129 Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the application

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

152 Cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidit

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

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

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

156 Cardiac resynchronization therapy decreases all-cause mo

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

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

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

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

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

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

163 Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator patients

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

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

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

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

168 eductions in left atrial volume (LAV) with a cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D)

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

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

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

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

173 Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are ind

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

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

176 Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy depends both on dyssyn

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

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

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

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

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

182 ntable cardioverter-defibrillator (including cardiac resynchronization therapy devices) and were foll

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

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

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

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

187 An important determinant of successful cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure is t

188 In the MADIT-CRT trial, the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy for the reduction in r

189 g implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy) for patients with hea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

200 Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves mortality and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

210 Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy is most favorable in p

211 Cardiac resynchronization therapy is widely used for the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

224 Finally, cardiac resynchronization therapy may be beneficial in c

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

236 iovascular implantable electronic device and cardiac resynchronization therapy programming strategies

237 Cardiac resynchronization therapy prolongs survival in a

238 (Advance Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Registry [ADVANCE CRT]

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

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

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

242 Optimal hemodynamic cardiac resynchronization therapy response coincides wit

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

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

245 erstanding septal deformation and predicting cardiac resynchronization therapy response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

261 Temporary RV cardiac resynchronization therapy was applied in the pre

262 Treatment with cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a

263 Moreover, cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a

264 reduction of left ventricular volumes after cardiac resynchronization therapy were most pronounced i

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

273 ere are limited data regarding the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (

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

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

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

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

278 Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

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

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

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

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

283 outcome analysis that compared the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

284 Treatment with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CR

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

286 428 patients at least 65 years old receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator fro

287 We compared outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator imp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

295 205 patients with heart failure referred for cardiac resynchronization therapy with QRS >/=120 ms and

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

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

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

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

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