ライフサイエンスコーパス: end-systolic volume

1 ricle (end systolic pressure) to its volume (end systolic volume).

2 eling (defined as >/=15% reduction in the LV end-systolic volume).

3 ecause of a preservation of left ventricular end-systolic volume.

4 s quantified as 6-month percent change of LV end-systolic volume.

5 stolic volume--LA end-diastolic volume) / LA end-systolic volume.

6 iuretic peptide levels, and left ventricular end-systolic volume.

7 The primary end point was left ventricular end-systolic volume.

8 erioration in LV end-diastolic volume and LV end-systolic volume.

9 reased LV ejection fraction and decreased LV end-systolic volume.

10 fined as a 15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume.

11 ession and preoperative LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes.

12 nction (bias +/- 95% confidence) in terms of end-systolic volume (0 +/- 3.3 ml), end-diastolic volume

13 lume (0.53 mL +/- 0.03 vs 0.65 mL +/- 0.04), end-systolic volume (0.36 mL +/- 0.03 vs 0.49 mL +/- 0.0

14 .2 +/- 0.7 versus 1.59 +/- 0.6 mL; P<0.001), end-systolic volumes (0.72 +/- 0.42 versus 0.40 +/- 0.19

15 .01 mm/mL; P<0.01), a lower left ventricular end-systolic volume (-0.01 mm/mL; P=0.01), and lower lef

16 SMT decreased both left ventricular end-systolic volume (10.4 +/- 2 to 7.7 +/- 4 mL; p < .05

17 r end-diastolic volume (-18 mL; P=0.009) and end-systolic volume (-14 mL; P=0.005) occurred at end in

18 /-7.32 mL; P=0.03), a trend toward decreased end systolic volume (142.4+/-16.5 versus 107.6+/-7.4 mL;

19 0.83 cm to 6.51 +/- 0.91 cm, p < 0.001), LV end-systolic volume (178 +/- 72 to 145 +/- 23 ml, p < 0.

20 lic volumes (343 +/- 23 microl), but smaller end-systolic volumes (180 +/- 16 microl) in the collagen

21 versus 67 +/- 1% in controls, P < 0.001; LV end-systolic volume 19 +/- 4 ml/m(2) versus 25 +/- 1 ml/

22 ociated with a reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-24.8 +/- 3.0 ml vs. -8.8 +/- 3.9 m

23 ignificantly overestimated end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (26 and 19 mL; P < 0.05), resulting

24 vs. placebo, respectively; p < 0.001) and LV end-systolic volume (-26.6 +/- 20.5 ml vs. -0.5 +/- 21.9

25 decrease in LV end-systolic volume (DeltaLV end-systolic volume -28.2+/-38.9 versus -4.9+/-33.8 mL,

26 volumes (end-diastolic volume, -5 mLdecade; end-systolic volume, -3 mL/decade; EF, -2 mL/decade) and

27 olic volume 106 +/- 15 versus 110 +/- 22 mL; end-systolic volume 35 +/- 6 versus 36 +/- 6 mL) or incr

28 71+/-4% versus 69+/-4%; P=0.03), and smaller end-systolic volumes (38+/-9 versus 43+/-12 mL; P=0.03).

29 ith controls, evoked by a preservation of LV end-systolic volume (-4.05 mL; 95% CI, -6.91 to -1.18; P

30 icant reduction of left ventricular volumes (end-systolic volume: -4.3 [11.3] versus 7.4 [11.8], P=0.

31 -16 mL/m(2); P<0.05), and greater indexed LV end-systolic volume (41+/-11 versus 31+/-7 and 30+/-8 mL

32 ate adverse LV remodeling was attenuated (LV end-systolic volume, 42.6 mL [38.5-50.5] to 56.1 mL [50.

33 .4 vs. 94.1 +/- 21.1 mmHg, P < 0.001) and LV end-systolic volume (44.2 +/- 7.8 vs. 50.5 +/- 10.8 ml,

34 ndicated by an increase in right ventricular end-systolic volume (54 +/- 10 to 87 +/-6 mL; p < .05) a

35 49+/-16% versus -35+/-20%), left ventricular end-systolic volume (-59+/-20 versus -37+/-21%), and per

36 e interval, -3.55 to -0.95; P=0.0007) and LV end-systolic volume (-6.37 mL; 95% confidence interval,

37 ifferences were observed in left ventricular end-systolic volumes (-6.4 mL [95% CI, -18.8 to 5.9] ver

38 min(-1).kg(-1), P=0.021), RV dysfunction (RV end-systolic volume 61 versus 55 mL/m2, P=0.018; RV ejec

39 (-5.6% [95% CI -8.7 to -2.5]; p < 0.001) and end-systolic volume (-7.4 ml [95% CI -12.2 to -2.7]; p =

40 s (end diastolic volume 142+/-43 to 91+/-18, end systolic volume 73+/-33 to 43+/-14 mL/m(2), P<0.0001

41 nce interval, -5.47 to -2.59; P<0.00001), LV end-systolic volume (-8.91 mL; 95% confidence interval,

42 versus 69%), higher indexed left ventricular end-systolic volumes (96 versus 40 mL), and greater inde

43 rease of indexed RV end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume (98 ml/m(2) to 87 ml/m(2) and 50 ml/

44 Allopurinol also reduced LV end-systolic volume (allopurinol -2.81 +/- 7.8 mls vs. p

45 nd-diastolic dimensions and left ventricular end-systolic volume also decreased after 12 weeks of BVS

46 positively associated with end diastolic and end systolic volume and inversely related to ejection fr

47 ry regurgitation, elevated right ventricular end systolic volumes and reduced right and left ventricu

48 In control animals, LV end-systolic volume and end-diastolic volume increased f

49 use mortality and change in left ventricular end-systolic volume and end-diastolic volume.

50 End-systolic volume and end-diastolic volume/body surfac

51 At eight weeks, LV end-systolic volume and end-systolic muscle-to-cavity-ar

52 stress, reduced LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume and increase in LV ejection fraction

53 noninvasive calculation of left ventricular end-systolic volume and left ventricular end-diastolic v

54 no significant difference in measurements of end-systolic volume and mass.

55 In multivariate analysis, LV end-systolic volume and mitral annulus area most strongl

56 c infarction resulted in less increase in LV end-systolic volume and preservation of LV ejection frac

57 LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and diastolic function were signifi

58 orrelated directly with LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and inversely with LV ejection frac

59 The LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and LV ejection fraction were not s

60 essure/volume ratio (systolic blood pressure/end systolic volume) and , whilst diastolic function was

61 olic volume, LV wall stress, no change in LV end-systolic volume, and a fall in LV ejection fraction.

62 In contrast, end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and EF remained unchanged during th

63 tween observers for RV end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction were 0.93, 0.

64 The mean LV end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction were 93 mL +/

65 ts included changes in end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction, analyzed wit

66 terial) plasma norepinephrine (tNEPI), LVEF, end-systolic volume, and end-diastolic volume were measu

67 h-dose allopurinol regresses LVH, reduces LV end-systolic volume, and improves endothelial function i

68 ntricle end-diastolic volume, left ventricle end-systolic volume, and left ventricle ejection fractio

69 cular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic volume, and left ventricular ejection fract

70 end-diastolic volume, higher left ventricle end-systolic volume, and lower LVEF with both imaging mo

71 lar (LV) ejection fraction, infarct size, LV end-systolic volume, and LV end-diastolic volume were an

72 lar (LV) ejection fraction, infarct size, LV end-systolic volume, and LV end-diastolic volume were es

73 (3 loci each for LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, and LV mass to end-diastolic volume

74 However, changes in end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and LVEF did not differ between gro

75 cular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic volume, and LVEF were not statistically sig

76 LV ejection fraction, global LV end-systolic volume, and mitral annular area were relati

77 of end-systolic pressure, ejection fraction, end-systolic volume, and the end-diastolic pressure volu

78 ined as >/=15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 1-year of follow-up) among 612 pa

79 iles 1 and 3) for change in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months for the SmartDelay, echo

80 ifference in improvement in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months was observed between the

81 those demonstrating a >/=15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months.

82 efined as >15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months.

83 rimary endpoint was a >/=15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months.

84 and > or = 15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months.

85 The effect of cooling on left ventricular end-systolic volume at a pressure of 100 mm Hg (hyperthe

86 ar contractility increased (left ventricular end-systolic volume at a pressure of 100 mm Hg: 74 +/- 5

87 assessed by the calculated left ventricular end-systolic volume at an end-systolic left ventricular

88 ocardiography compared with left ventricular end-systolic volume at baseline.

89 f reverse remodeling (> or =10% reduction in end-systolic volume) at 6 months.

90 Adjustment for 3-month DeltaLV end-systolic volume attenuated the association between Q

91 eta=0.01/mL; P<0.0001), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (beta=0.01/mL; P<0.001) were associa

92 me (beta=0.811; adjusted P=0.007), higher LV end-systolic volume (beta=0.350; adjusted P=0.048), high

93 6; 95% CI, 0.8-2.5; P<0.001), and smaller LV end-systolic volumes (beta=1.4; 95% CI, 0.5-2.3; P=0.001

94 V ED 3-dimensional radius/wall thickness; LV end-systolic volume/body surface area, LV longitudinal s

95 as associated with reduced end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (both P<0.001), reduced LV mass (P<

96 by 14 months (end-diastolic volume/BSA(1.3), end-systolic volume/BSA(1.3), and mass/BSA(1.3) mean dif

97 es of left ventricular ejection fraction and end-systolic volume, but not with the severity of brain

98 emonstrated a reduction in end-diastolic and end-systolic volume by echocardiography, activation of t

99 erm use of the CSD lowered end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes by -19 +/- 4% and -22 +/- 8%, respe

100 in end-diastolic volumes (EDV) by 29% and in end-systolic volumes by 38% were demonstrated immediatel

101 cular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular end-systolic volume, cardiac index, dP/dt max, -dP/dt mi

102 nt decreases in LV end-diastolic volumes, LV end-systolic volumes, cardiac output, cardiac index, atr

103 analyses, female sex was associated with LV end-systolic volume change (beta=0.12; P=0.003) and a lo

104 on between sex and LV reverse remodeling (LV end-systolic volume change) and sex and the composite ou

105 eft ventricular dilation compared with sham (end-systolic volume, day 2: 40.6 +/- 10.2 muL vs. 23.8 +

106 The LV end systolic volume decreased from 186 +/- 68 ml to 157

107 9% of 426 patients, whereas left ventricular end-systolic volume decreased > or = 15% in 56% of 286 p

108 increase at post (39+/-2%; P<0.05), whereas end-systolic volume decreased.

109 LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes decreased as early as 30 days after

110 s associated with significant decrease in LV end-systolic volume (DeltaLV end-systolic volume -28.2+/

111 xamination to determine LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume (EDV and ESV, respectively), mass, e

112 asurements were made of LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, ejection fraction, LV mass, severi

113 LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes, ejection fraction, plasma norepine

114 relationship of end-systolic pressure versus end-systolic volume [Emax] and the slope of the dP/dtmax

115 ardiographic assessments of left ventricular end-systolic volume, end-diastolic volume, mass, and eje

116 r left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end systolic volume (ESV), and end diastolic volume (EDV

117 a significant decrease (P < or = 0.01) in LV end-systolic volume (ESV) and a significant increase in

118 effect) in LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) and ejection fraction (EF) was

119 tion (LVEF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and end-systolic volume (ESV) are predictors of mortality in

120 . 1.8 +/- 7.9; P < 0.05), difference between end-systolic volume (ESV) at rest and stress (DeltaESV[s

121 filling by suction require contraction to an end-systolic volume (ESV) below equilibrium volume (Veq)

122 ements of the end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) can be obtained, and the relat

123 l coupling ratio using stroke volume (SV) to end-systolic volume (ESV) has been shown to be an indepe

124 .001), and LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) increased (EDV: 71 +/- 3 vs. 8

125 action (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), and end-systolic volume (ESV) were calculated using 2 commer

126 agreement of LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and EF measured by 3DE and 2D

127 by measuring LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), and ejection fraction (EF).

128 rence limits for end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), ejection fraction, and region

129 Cardiac function parameters, including the end-systolic volume (ESV), end-diastolic volume (EDV), s

130 End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV) and ejecti

131 End-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), ejection

132 n fraction (EF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), stroke volume(SV), and myocar

133 ricular volumes were strongly correlated for end-systolic volume (ESV: Pearson r = 0.99, P < .001), e

134 first month (120% increased left ventricular end-systolic volume [ESV; P<0.01]), but shunt closure re

135 This was accompanied by a reduction in LV end-systolic volume from 122.7 to 89.0 mL (difference, 3

136 A change in left ventricular end-systolic volume from intermediate stage to peak exer

137 se remodeling was defined as reduction in LV end systolic volume >/=15% at 6 months.

138 onse to CRT was defined as a reduction in LV end-systolic volume >/=15% at 6 months.

139 as defined as a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume >15% at follow-up echocardiography c

140 noncontrast 3D EF, end-diastolic volume, and end-systolic volume had significantly lower temporal var

141 ic volume improved from 172 ml to 140 ml and end-systolic volume improved from 82 ml to 73 ml (both p

142 o 143 +/- 53 ml (n = 203; p < 0.0001) and LV end-systolic volume improved from 87 +/- 47 ml to 79 +/-

143 e right atrial volume than right ventricular end-systolic volume in AF-TR (P<0.001).

144 e of 6.7 mL/m(2) in the change of indexed LV end-systolic volume in favor of G-CSF group (P=0.02).

145 Isoprenaline decreased left ventricular end-systolic volume in wild-type hearts (10.6 +/- 1.6 to

146 dysfunction preceded LV dysfunction, with RV end systolic volumes increased and RV ejection fractions

147 In addition, LV end-systolic volume increased by 108% in controls versus

148 In control dogs, LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume increased significantly (62+/-4 vers

149 In controls, end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes increased and ejection fraction dec

150 ft ventricular end-diastolic and left atrial end-systolic volumes increased by 3.63 ml/m(2) (P = 0.00

151 FF (P=0.06) and significant reductions in LV end systolic volume index (-6.7 +/- 21.1 versus 2.1 +/-

152 ation, and smaller baseline left ventricular end systolic volume index also were also associated with

153 - 10.4 to 39 +/- 12.4%, and left ventricular end systolic volume index decreased from 109 +/- 71 to 6

154 LV end systolic volume index is a significant predictor of

155 LV end systolic volume index was also evaluated as a predic

156 LV end systolic volume index was predictive of mortality/mo

157 e clinical composite score, left ventricular end systolic volume index, 6-minute walk time, and quali

158 up to 1% for every 1 mL/m(2) increase in LV end systolic volume index.

159 the entire cohort identified preoperative RV end-systolic volume index <90 mL/m(2) and QRS duration <

160 -26.2 versus -7.4 mL/m(2)), left ventricular end-systolic volume index (-28.7 versus -9.1 mL/m(2)), l

161 rsus 22 years; P<0.001) and had increased RV end-systolic volume index (43 versus 35 mL/m2; P=0.03),

162 up; p = 0.0012), as did the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (48.4 +/- 19.7 ml/m(2) vs. 43.

163 ml/m(2) vs. 73 +/- 8 ml/m(2), p = 0.03) and end-systolic volume index (ESVI) 20 +/- 6 ml/m(2) vs. 17

164 3-vessel CAD, EF below the median (27%), and end-systolic volume index (ESVI) above the median (79 ml

165 ate left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), end-systolic volume index (ESVI) and infarct size (IS),

166 controls with 3D wall motion tracking for RV end-systolic volume index (ESVi), RV ejection fraction (

167 scularization outcomes could be modulated by end-systolic volume index (ESVi).

168 We noninvasively characterized EaI/E(LV)I = end-systolic volume index (ESVI)/stroke volume index (SV

169 The left atrial end-systolic volume index (LAESVI) is a predictor of car

170 e primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as asse

171 The left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) decreased from 80.4 +

172 fined as a decrease in left ventricular (LV) end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) of more than 10% from

173 gnificant difference in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) or survival after 1 y

174 Patients with a left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) reduction of at least

175 ngitudinal data analysis of left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) was performed to adju

176 Temporal changes in MR severity and LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) were evaluated by lin

177 e primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), a measure of left ve

178 , LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), left atrial volume i

179 gnificant difference in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), survival, or adverse

180 end-diastolic volume index (P=0.007), and LV end-systolic volume index (P< or =0.0001).

181 3-mL/m(2) mean reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume index (P<0.0001), whereas non-LBBB p

182 =0.0007), LV ejection fraction (P=0.001), LV end-systolic volume index (P=0.0006), or segmental WMA (

183 s associated with increased left ventricular end-systolic volume index (r=0.62, P<0.01), left atrial

184 ctors of death (P < 0.01): right ventricular end-systolic volume index adjusted for age and sex, and

185 3 mL/m2 decrease (least square mean+/-SE) in end-systolic volume index and a 6+/-1% increase in left

186 nary anatomy, and left ventricular function, end-systolic volume index and B-type natriuretic peptide

187 ivariable regression model, left ventricular end-systolic volume index and left atrial volume index w

188 Right ventricular end-systolic volume index and left ventricular strain-ra

189 ences in mean LV end-diastolic volume index, end-systolic volume index and LVEF between diabetic pati

190 but not when combined with right ventricular end-systolic volume index and strain-rate e'-wave in the

191 gical ventricular reconstruction reduced the end-systolic volume index by 19%, as compared with a red

192 rison with placebo, empagliflozin reduced LV end-systolic volume index by 6.0 (95% CI, -10.8 to -1.2)

193 Percentage-predicted right ventricular end-systolic volume index can identify a high percentage

194 Percentage-predicted right ventricular end-systolic volume index independently predicted outcom

195 , defined as an increase in left ventricular end-systolic volume index of >15% at 24 months.

196 arly in patients with increased preoperative end-systolic volume index or B-type natriuretic peptide.

197 End-systolic volume index remained unchanged (P=0.8).

198 ts: A percentage-predicted right ventricular end-systolic volume index threshold of 227% or a left ve

199 cted by VNS (p < 0.05), but left ventricular end-systolic volume index was not different (p = 0.49).

200 ues for LV end-diastolic volume index and LV end-systolic volume index were negligible (g<0.10).

201 eft ventricle end-diastolic volume index and end-systolic volume index were reduced from 128.4+/-22.1

202 rong predictor of change in left ventricular end-systolic volume index with monotonic increases as QR

203 ular dilatation (increased right ventricular end-systolic volume index), high Acute Physiology and Ch

204 ventricular ejection fraction, 23+/-9%; mean end-systolic volume index, 113+/-48 mL; mean total myoca

205 d the interventricular mechanical delay, the end-systolic volume index, and the area of the mitral re

206 yond age and sex (both P< or =0.01), were LV end-systolic volume index, LA volume, atrial fibrillatio

207 ST or T changes on ECG, and left ventricular end-systolic volume index, LGE maintained a >4-fold haza

208 n after adjusting for clinical risk factors, end-systolic volume index, mitral regurgitation, incompl

209 mpared with the CABG group: left ventricular end-systolic volume index, MR volume, and plasma B-type

210 ow-up (end-diastolic volume index, P=0.0056; end-systolic volume index, P=0.4719).

211 n analyses, the MRI-derived left ventricular end-systolic volume index, RV, and OMR category (severe

212 15% or more increase in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index.

213 LV remodeling was defined as change in LV end-systolic volume index.

214 ction, LV end-diastolic volume index, and LV end-systolic volume index.

215 ction, LV end-diastolic volume index, and LV end-systolic volume index.

216 (9.5 years between examinations 1 and 5) in end-systolic volume indexed (ESVi) to body surface area.

217 were change from baseline to 36 weeks in LV end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area and LV

218 Left ventricular EDV and end-systolic volume indexed to body surface area were sm

219 ld greater reduction in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indexes and a 3-fold greater increas

220 LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indexes decreased in patients with C

221 to quantify changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indices (DeltaEDVI, DeltaESVI) and e

222 o determine LV mass index, end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indices (EDVI, ESVI), regional wall

223 her right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indices accompanied by lower RV ejec

224 Corrected right ventricular end-systolic volume is a strong prognostic marker in idi

225 here LA emptying fraction was defined as (LA end-systolic volume--LA end-diastolic volume) / LA end-s

226 001; patients: +6 mL [3%], not significant), end-systolic volume larger (healthy subjects: +9 mL [17%

227 but significant correlations with age, EDV, end-systolic volume, left ventricular ejection fraction

228 We estimated 95th weighted percentiles of LV end systolic volume, LV end diastolic volume, relative w

229 ft ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV ejection fraction, left atrial v

230 en comorbidity burden and improvements in LV end-systolic volume, LV end-diastolic volume, left ventr

231 s of 6 LV traits-LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV stroke volume, LV ejection fract

232 icant treatment effects found on LV ED or LV end-systolic volumes, LV ED mass/LV ED volume or LV ED 3

233 efined as reduction in both left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left atrial volume (LAV)

234 Primary endpoint was change in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) at 24 weeks from baseline, m

235 tricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) by cardiovascular magnetic r

236 tolic volume (LVEDV) index, left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) index, and LVEF were obtaine

237 mary endpoint was change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) on cardiac magnetic resonanc

238 jection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) relative to baseline measure

239 mages yielded left ventricular (LV) mass, LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), LV end-diastolic volume (LV

240 as reductions in atrial and left ventricular end-systolic volumes (LVESV) at 1 year.

241 eductions, respectively, in left ventricular end-systolic volume [LVESV] at 1 year compared with base

242 ce area [BSA], 25 mL/m(2)); left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVSV), 21 mL (LVSV/BSA, 13 mL/m(2))

243 , LV function was more dynamic, with reduced end-systolic volume (mean +/- 95% confidence interval ej

244 erence: 43+/-22.5 mL), higher left ventricle end-systolic volume (mean difference: 34+/-20.5 mL), and

245 nd at 70.06 +/- 14.8 ml with MRI (r = 0.99), end-systolic volume measured 39.8 +/- 10.4 ml with 3D US

246 Smaller end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes measured with RT3DE immediately aft

247 [milliliters]/body surface area [BSA](1.3), end-systolic volume [milliliters]/BSA(1.3), and mass [gr

248 RT3DE underestimated end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes only slightly (5 and 6 mL), with no

249 Referral to PVR based on QRS duration, RV end-systolic volume, or RV ejection fraction may be bene

250 tion fraction (P < 0.0001) and a decrease in end-systolic volume (P = 0.0002) were observed, which al

251 tion, while the RVPAS group had increased RV end-systolic volume (p = 0.004) and decreased right vent

252 elastance (p = 0.003), and right ventricular end-systolic volume (p = 0.020) while right ventricular

253 4 +/- 7% (P<0.001) because of an increase in end-systolic volume (P<0.05).

254 sed LV end-diastolic volume (P=0.001) and LV end-systolic volume (P=0.0001) and greater LV sphericity

255 ex, and body surface area, right ventricular end-systolic volume (P=0.004) strongly predicted mortali

256 n fraction (P<0.001) because of an increased end-systolic volume (P=0.015).

257 e of 20% to 29% (P=0.003) and a reduction in end-systolic volume (P=0.03) in the treated patients.

258 =0.016), end-diastolic volume (P=0.029), and end-systolic volumes (P=0.021).

259 th crypts had lower indexed left ventricular end-systolic volumes (P=0.042) and higher indexed left a

260 4, Delta end-diastolic volume: P<0.02, Delta end-systolic volume: P<0.005).

261 tricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-systolic volume), plus clinical outcomes.

262 Left ventricular end-systolic volume progressively increased by 190% with

263 end diastolic volume (r(2)=0.69, P=0.04) and end systolic volume (r(2)=0.83, P=0.01).

264 = 0.14, respectively, for PRF and PRV) or RV end-systolic volume (r = 0.2; p = 0.42 and r = 0.19; p =

265 relations were found for LV mass (r = 0.95), end-systolic volume (r = 0.93), and end-diastolic volume

266 nd related to the change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (r=-0.53; P<0.001).

267 .34 mL; bias, -4.93 mL) and left ventricular end-systolic volume (r=0.96; standard error of the estim

268 or group II (end-diastolic volume, r = 0.66; end-systolic volume, r = 0.69).

269 for group I (end-diastolic volume, r = 0.86; end-systolic volume, r = 0.81) and only fair for group I

270 or volumes (end-diastolic volume, R(2)=0.43; end-systolic volume, R(2)=0.35; stroke volume, R(2)=0.30

271 to LV global functional parameters (indexed end-systolic volume, r=0.47, P<0.001; ejection fraction,

272 x, ejection fraction, peak systolic pressure/end-systolic volume ratio) to endotoxin in both study gr

273 (74%) met standard criteria for response (LV end-systolic volume reduction >/= 15%), 18 patients (58%

274 %), 18 patients (58%) for super-response (LV end-systolic volume reduction >/= 30%).

275 Echocardiographic left ventricular end-systolic volume reduction >=15% after 6 months was d

276 35% to 91%; for predicting left ventricular end-systolic volume response, sensitivity ranged from 9%

277 uction delay, contraction asynchrony, and LV end-systolic volume ("reverse remodeling").

278 uintile versus the bottom quintile of the LV end-systolic volume risk score).

279 s in indexed RV end-diastolic volumes and RV end-systolic volumes (RVESVi) (indexed RV end-diastolic

280 L (RVDV/BSA, 164 mL/m(2)); right ventricular end-systolic volume (RVSV), 198 mL (RVSV/BSA, 124 mL/m(2

281 t predictor of survival, independent of age, end-systolic volume, sex, mitral regurgitation, diabetes

282 Fallot in women had larger right ventricular end-systolic volumes (standard deviation scores: women,

283 RV volumes (end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume), stroke volume, and EF were measure

284 nal treatment in end diastolic volume (EDV), end systolic volume, stroke volume (SV), cardiac output

285 Biventricular end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, stroke volume, and ejection fractio

286 sing left ventricular end-diastolic volumes, end-systolic volumes, stroke volumes, and masses with in

287 ygenic score of MRI-derived left ventricular end systolic volume strongly associates with incident DC

288 estimate left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes using electron-beam computed tomogr

289 Resting end systolic volume was 129+/-60 mL at rest and increase

290 ction fraction, from which right ventricular end-systolic volume was derived, was measured by the the

291 ular end-diastolic volume, while ventricular end-systolic volume was reduced by 24 +/- 6% of pre-heat

292 cremental 10% reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume were associated with corresponding r

293 The LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were 319 +/- 12 microl and 190 +/-

294 , reductions in normalized end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were observed for the MeHA High gro

295 ther BiVP or HisBP, the LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were significantly lower (mean dura

296 ther BiVP or HisBP, the LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were significantly lower (mean dura

297 tract-velocity time integral] / [indexed LA end-systolic volume]), where LA emptying fraction was de

298 ongoing increase in end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume, whereas H-NCT did not

299 s, especially the change in left ventricular end-systolic volume with exercise and the exercise eject

300 ft ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume--LV end-systolic volume) x heart rate x arterio-venous oxyge