ライフサイエンスコーパス: ventricular ejection fraction

1 atients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

2 of which correlated with improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction.

3 th a smaller improvement in post-PVR RV/left ventricular ejection fraction.

4 nts with >/=3+ primary MR and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

5 graphy total defect score, but not with left ventricular ejection fraction.

6 al, 1.09-2.07), but not with decline in left ventricular ejection fraction.

7 ict outcomes at least as effectively as left ventricular ejection fraction.

8 ury was already detectable in preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

9 stion, but no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction.

10 risk for death/VT, even with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

11 ms or unspecific symptoms and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

12 al in symptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

13 mproves cardiac function with augmented left ventricular ejection fraction.

14 c arrest do not have a markedly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

15 occur in the setting of more preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

16 icularly in those with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

17 patients with chronic HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction.

18 anch block) wide QRS complex, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction.

19 t Association class I), despite similar left ventricular ejection fractions.

20 e gadolinium enhancement, and left and right ventricular ejection fractions.

21 with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction, 0.24+/-0.09) were randomi

22 f SCD were 3.07 (2.29-4.11) for reduced left ventricular ejection fraction; 1.85 (1.36-2.52) for mitr

23 class III/IV: 55% versus 15%, P<0.001; left ventricular ejection fraction: 26+/-10% versus 36+/-16%,

24 an age=49-80 years, sex=0%-92% females, left ventricular ejection fraction=26%-61%).

25 spectively enrolled (age 62+/-11 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 27+/-7%).

26 e, 53 +/- 12 years, range, 16-73 years; left ventricular ejection fraction, 27 +/- 14%) underwent fra

27 ents with VT/VF had significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction (28.3% versus 29.5%; P<0.0

28 secutive patients (median age 68 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30%) were studied (6 month

29 male; 73% ischemic cardiomyopathy; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 31%; 68% with multiple un

30 ents (121 men), aged 67.4+/-11.9 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 33.1+/-13.6% (n=137), and

31 chaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, who had left ventricular ejection fraction 35% or less, an automatic

32 scar-related VT (75 ischemic patients; left ventricular ejection fraction, 36 +/- 13%).

33 , symptomatic chronic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction 40% or lower.

34 Patients with RV dysfunction had poorer left ventricular ejection fractions (42% versus 69%), higher

35 V, 72 patients undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 +/- 17.4% vs. 55.3 +

36 lar ejection fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 45+/-6%), RV dysfunction

37 ents (39%; 73% men; age, 41+/-25 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 49+/-16%) with high incide

38 owed significantly reduced LV systolic (left ventricular ejection fraction = 49+/-10% versus 58+/-10%

39 ric acid (8.2 +/- 2.6 mg/dL), decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (50% median; range, 10%-70

40 reduced LV systolic function (mean+/-SD left ventricular ejection fraction = 52+/-11% versus 63+/-8%;

41 ms; P<0.05), followed by a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (54+/-6 versus 63+/-5%; P<

42 atients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD

43 rmal electrocardiography, and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, a reliable diagnostic too

44 , both of whom had normalization of the left ventricular ejection fraction after discontinuation of t

45 to left ventricular ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction alone, 0.68).

46 omyopathy with cardiac atrophy, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and 50% mortality.

47 clinical variables and those including left ventricular ejection fraction and b-type natriuretic pep

48 ores, more renal dysfunction, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction and CFR.

49 Russia/Georgia patients also had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and creatinine but higher

50 gnificantly with MR imaging measures of left ventricular ejection fraction and end-systolic volume, b

51 would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms

52 nt effect was observed in the change in left ventricular ejection fraction and infarct size, and the

53 Both right ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular eject

54 ed the overall effect of CSC therapy on left ventricular ejection fraction and performed meta-regress

55 Despite normal left ventricular ejection fraction and serum biomarkers, pati

56 Change from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction and ventricular volumes wa

57 donormal age-matched groups with normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and (2) distinguish betwe

58 ates, including comorbidities, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, and antecedent myocardial

59 fter adjusting for the TIMI Risk Score, left ventricular ejection fraction, and B-type natriuretic pe

60 ive relationships with age, female sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, and body mass index.

61 Ivabradine treatment improved left ventricular ejection fraction, and clinical status and Q

62 parameters-late gadolinium enhancement, left ventricular ejection fraction, and especially right vent

63 ven after adjustment for comorbidities, left ventricular ejection fraction, and functional heart fail

64 uretic peptide and uric acid, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, and increased relative wa

65 Median infarct weight, left ventricular ejection fraction, and infarct size did not

66 ange in noninfarct myocardial fibrosis, left ventricular ejection fraction, and infarct size.

67 diseases, less pronounced reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction, and lower brain natriuret

68 mellitus, ischemic heart disease, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and more recent onset HF

69 variate model, older age, anemia, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and presence of left vent

70 class III or IV heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and prolonged QRS duratio

71 rformance status and exercise capacity, left ventricular ejection fraction, and quality of life.

72 lmonary arterial compliance, depressed right ventricular ejection fraction, and shorter life expectan

73 ccurrence of atrial arrhythmias and low left ventricular ejection fraction, as estimated using multiv

74 tients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction assigned to spironolactone

75 ular ejection fraction, and especially right ventricular ejection fraction-associated with prognosis.

76 exercise capacity, quality of life, or left ventricular ejection fraction at 24 weeks.

77 p exhibited significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction at 3, 6, and 12 months of

78 The mean left ventricular ejection fraction at enrollment was 28+/-9%.

79 Median left ventricular ejection fraction at presentation was 35% (i

80 SE=0.23), % females (B=-0.38, SE=0.04), left ventricular ejection fraction (B=-0.81, SE=0.20), and bo

81 alloon aortic valvuloplasty, had higher left ventricular ejection fraction, better cognitive function

82 thy (prior bypass surgery in all cases; left ventricular ejection fraction between 25% and 30%) and w

83 ase free, which included measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction by multigated acquisition

84 Left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac torsion, and stra

85 Echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction change from baseline to mo

86 ltivariable associate of the changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (coefficient, -2.12; 95% c

87 rences were found for global changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (control -9.6+/-1.3% versu

88 d with differential functional outcome (left ventricular ejection fraction day 21: permanent ligation

89 al study was to compare the accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction derived from intrinsic fre

90 iable model including respiratory rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, diabetes mellitus, and GR

91 The mean left ventricular ejection fraction did not decrease with trea

92 Right ventricular ejection fraction did not differ between ath

93 In addition, many patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction die of nonsudden causes of

94 desartan protects against a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction during or shortly after tr

95 (LG/LF) aortic stenosis with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) has been described as

96 Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to >35% occurs in man

97 ption benefits subsidy, and less recent left ventricular ejection fraction evaluation.

98 d the incremental value of considering right ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of futu

99 ovides incremental value in addition to left ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of sudd

100 rastuzumab group had a > 10% decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from baseline to a value <

101 e (from 80.7 to 85.5 mg/d; P = .57) and left ventricular ejection fraction (from 62% to 62.3%; P = .0

102 and 21% of subjects with NICM achieved left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40% (p = 0.034).

103 Patients (n=64) with left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40%, New York Heart Ass

104 In HFpEF, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40%, we derived propens

105 0 years of age, with symptomatic HF and left ventricular ejection fraction >/=45%, were enrolled in T

106 Among those with a left ventricular ejection fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ven

107 n positron emission tomography and with left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were followed (median

108 rden were measured in 205 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >50% and extracardiac sarc

109 III, exercise capacity <80% of normal, left ventricular ejection fraction >50%, and diastolic dysfun

110 Association functional class II to III, left ventricular ejection fraction >50%, diastolic dysfunctio

111 ng (UNOS) database with preserved donor left ventricular ejection fraction (>/=50%) and where peak do

112 atients given placebo, and decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction (>/=grade 2) in 19 (1%) an

113 (63+/-14 years, 60% men) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>60%) and chronic moderat

114 in trials with systematic collection of left ventricular ejection fraction had a C index of 0.77.

115 atients with progressive decline of the left ventricular ejection fraction had a worse prognosis.

116 Until now, left ventricular ejection fraction has been used as a key cri

117 f patients with severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction have Vmax in this range, w

118 ility (hazard ratio 0.198; P=0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (hazard ratio 0.916; P=0.0

119 congestive heart failure have preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF).

120 atients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an independ

121 , estimated glomerular filtration rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, high-sensitivity C-reacti

122 HFPEF despite pharmacological therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction higher than 40%, and a rai

123 ion (HR 8.13, 95% CI 4.09-12.16), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.98

124 d ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.28-2.69), left ventricular ejection fraction (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.

125 Left ventricular ejection fraction improved (pPVR versus mPVR

126 4 patients (average age: 63+/-15 years; left ventricular ejection fraction in 27+/-9%; cardiogenic sh

127 t disease show a similar improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction in large animal models of

128 vealed a significantly decreased global left ventricular ejection fraction in parallel with increased

129 months, there was a greater increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients taking ivabrad

130 icative for the subsequent worsening of left ventricular ejection fraction in permanent ligation mice

131 ], P=0.02) and no significant change of left ventricular ejection fraction in the cell group.

132 rtrophy, but did prevent the decline in left ventricular ejection fraction in vivo.

133 with low-gradient (LG) AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, including paradoxical low

134 Left ventricular ejection fraction increased (50.6% to 54.2%)

135 n patient subgroups defined by abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction, increased respiratory rat

136 n, neither H/M results, BNP levels, nor left ventricular ejection fraction interacted with ICD use in

137 iction algorithm composed of RBP4, TTR, left ventricular ejection fraction, interventricular septal d

138 n patients with severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction irrespective of symptoms.

139 ly after CABG among patients with a low left ventricular ejection fraction is highest between the fir

140 but its risk in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction is unknown.

141 lthough usually associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, isolated RV systolic dysf

142 a under the curve of 0.87 when added to left ventricular ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection

143 stolic volume, LV end-diastolic volume, left ventricular ejection fraction, left atrial volume, and L

144 hypertension, systolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass ind

145 and were more likely to present with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30% compared wit

146 after adjustment for confounders, only left ventricular ejection fraction less than 45%, atrial fibr

147 Asymptomatic LVSD was defined as left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% by echocardi

148 bserved with either treatment, although left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50% occurred in

149 Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40%

150 Two hundred sixty-one patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=35% and New York Heart

151 o=1354) patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction </=35%, 918 received care

152 lators are indicated in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction </=35%, QRS width >/=130 m

153 Left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% (HR: 1.93, 95% CI:

154 elatives identified 5 individuals with right ventricular ejection fraction </=40% after Fontan operat

155 onischemic cardiomyopathy patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% and absent hyperenh

156 onischemic cardiomyopathy patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% and absent hyperenh

157 ed for cardiac decompensation and had a left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% before discharge.

158 ssociation functional class II-III, and left ventricular ejection fraction </=40% were screened for t

159 iagnosis of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%) and previous resid

160 t and control groups in HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%).

161 igned 253 patients with symptomatic HF, left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%, and serum uric aci

162 Patients admitted for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%, dyspnea, and eleva

163 tients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%.

164 We studied patients with systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction </=45%) and mild to modera

165 RV dysfunction was defined as right ventricular ejection fraction </=45%.

166 mptom class I to III heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction </=50% to biventricular or

167 ntricular systolic dysfunction (LVD) (= left ventricular ejection fraction </=50%), and end-stage hea

168 hronic kidney disease, pulmonary edema, left ventricular ejection fraction <20%, and peripheral arter

169 dence interval, 1.06-3.85; P=0.03), and left ventricular ejection fraction <30% (OR, 1.83; 95% confid

170 are hampered by over-reliance on global left ventricular ejection fraction <35% as the most important

171 w York Heart Association II to III, and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% within the past 6 mon

172 istry and divided them into SHIFT type (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, New York Heart Assoc

173 Patients with flow-limiting CAD, left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, or revascularization

174 , in the echocardiographic subcohort, a left ventricular ejection fraction <50% was present in only 1

175 n class II-IV heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<45%) were screened for d

176 domly assigned 60 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%) and elevated C-reac

177 rdiac conduction disturbance (81%), low left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%; 45%), atrial arrhyt

178 ith symptomatic systolic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, </=35%) not caused by cor

179 ed risk of mortality (lowest quartile: right ventricular ejection fraction, <40%; hazard ratio, 4.4 [

180 fidence interval, 1.4-13.5]; P=0.01 and left ventricular ejection fraction, <50%; hazard ratio, 6.6 [

181 eft ventricular (LV) systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction), LV diastolic function (e

182 se variables associated with death were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) </=45% (hazard rati

183 den cardiac death (SCD) in those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%.

184 vely reviewed patients with obesity and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% who underwent

185 22.9 g vs. 28.1 g; p = 0.06) and higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (48.3% vs. 43.9%; p

186 l coupling, and their associations with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure s

187 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and infarct size (I

188 Primary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricula

189 ndpoint was absolute change in 12-month left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricula

190 ith grade III+ chronic AR and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and the value of ao

191 ymptomatic aortic stenosis have reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before transcathete

192 iated with symptomatic and asymptomatic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decline.

193 nt of cardiac end points or significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) drop was associated

194 Post-transplantation mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in those w

195 study, we report outcome and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a large cohort o

196 (ICD) may experience an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) over time.

197 ubset of patients with HF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) previously had redu

198 Patients with recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remain at risk for

199 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was assessed by ech

200 ve incidence of cardiac events (CE) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were evaluated in 1

201 t trial, 42 patients with MF and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were randomized (1:

202 velocity (E/e') ratio, had the highest left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and were predomina

203 assessment included 3-dimensional (3D) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudina

204 lar remodeling, as commonly measured by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), is associated with

205 ination of left ventricular volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

206 (HF) differ significantly according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

207 detailed angiographic burden of CAD or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

208 of advanced heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

209 th significant primary MR and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

210 tion in infarct size and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

211 identified 472 donor hearts with LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=40%) on initial

212 stent AF and idiopathic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=45%).

213 -recommended treatment for HF (n = 525; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] of 33 +/- 9%; 66 +/

214 CCC with either a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]).

215 bserved with echocardiography (baseline left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 61%; global longit

216 cardioverter defibrillator at baseline, left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], and proportion of

217 Six patients had left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs) <30%, 8 had LVEFs

218 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, left ventricular ejection fraction, mean resting aortic valve

219 rdiac MRI, the most accurate method for left ventricular ejection fraction measurement.

220 ean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, left ventricular ejection fraction, mitral effective regurgit

221 STS score, resting left ventricular ejection fraction, mitral effective regurgit

222 A II and III (n=1254) NYHA IV had lower left ventricular ejection fraction; more had diabetes mellitu

223 Measures of primary interest included left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial edema (multiec

224 mias, brain natriuretic peptide levels, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial perfusion, and

225 raditional cardiovascular risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial scar and ische

226 Age, left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Associatio

227 rinsic frequencies noninvasively versus left ventricular ejection fraction obtained with cardiac MRI,

228 In patients with THV thrombosis, a left ventricular ejection fraction of <35% was present in 3 (

229 s II-IV symptoms of heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.35 or less due to an

230 NYHA) class II to IV heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or less.

231 nonischemic in 13 patients with a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 17%+/-5% before LVAD im

232 ively studied 257 HF patients with mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 31.4+/-8.5%.

233 fety of levosimendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who were un

234 was 32+/-12% (range, 6-54%) with mean right ventricular ejection fraction of 48+/-15% (range, 7-78%)

235 cology Group performance status of 0-2, left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50%, and adequ

236 rformance status of 0-1, and a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55% (by echoca

237 rmance status score of 0 or 1; a normal left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%; adequate

238 Five (13%) patients had decreases in left-ventricular ejection fraction, of which three (8%) were

239 Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, older age, diabetes melli

240 , myocardial fibrosis risk factors, and left ventricular ejection fraction or myocardial mass index (

241 Of the left ventricular ejection fraction or strain and strain rate

242 III/IV symptoms, transaortic gradient, left ventricular ejection fraction, or procedural characteris

243 nt of age, sex, heart failure duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, or renal function.

244 The main endpoint of analysis was left ventricular ejection fraction; overall, the correlation

245 0.001) and significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (p < 0.005).

246 ostial lesions (p = 0.049) and impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.019) were independe

247 increase of 3.9%+/-1.0% in cardiac MRI left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001) and 2.4+/-0.9 mL

248 enhancement area (P<0.0001), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001) because of an in

249 ubjects with HIV infection had 6% lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P<0.001), 7% higher myoca

250 d to compacted myocardium (P<0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.01).

251 elative area change was associated with left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.045) and ventricular-

252 D implantation predicted high post-LVAD left ventricular ejection fractions (P<0.01) and ejection fra

253 demonstrated substantial improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (partial recovery) and had

254 rences in spirometry, lung volumes, and left ventricular ejection fraction, patients with hypocapnia

255 Cox regression model that included age, left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS duration, and QRSp, o

256 AIT improved o2peak, left atrial and ventricular ejection fraction, quality-of-life measures

257 ut did not correlate significantly with left ventricular ejection fraction (r = -0.216, P = .252) or

258 owever, PPM is associated with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction recovery post-transcathete

259 Left ventricular ejection fraction remains the primary risk s

260 sibility was associated with change in right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF, rho=0.39, P<0.0001)

261 Patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction showed significant relatio

262 cell therapy was defined by changes in left ventricular ejection fraction, systolic/diastolic volume

263 cardiac conduction disturbance and low left ventricular ejection fraction, than those with missense

264 arent rapid and spontaneous recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction, the long-term clinical an

265 Cardiac function was assessed by left ventricular ejection fraction, torsion, and strain.

266 th severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing exercise stress

267 disease and heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undertook, after careful t

268 At enrollment, left ventricular ejection fraction was <50% in 55 patients an

269 n age was 64 years, 75% were male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32%, and peak VO2 was

270 hemic dilated cardiomyopathy), the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32+/-12% (range, 6-54%

271 of other race/ethnicity, and the median left ventricular ejection fraction was 34%.

272 unctional class III or IV, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 43 +/- 12%.

273 was 70 years (range, 45-71 years), mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 51% (+/-17%), and 32%

274 The mean+/-SD left ventricular ejection fraction was 58.2+/-9.1%.

275 all, by cardiac magnetic resonance the right ventricular ejection fraction was 60+/-8%, pulmonary reg

276 Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 65%; late gadolinium e

277 Right ventricular ejection fraction was an independent predict

278 The left ventricular ejection fraction was consistently decreased

279 t of normal, 4.18 vs 6.59; P = .02) and left ventricular ejection fraction was higher (mean [SD], 43.

280 Left ventricular ejection fraction was lower in patients with

281 In contrast, no female died and their left ventricular ejection fraction was only moderately affect

282 We observed that the improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly greater

283 Left ventricular ejection fraction was similar among groups,

284 increased by 4.87 ml/m(2) (P = 0.003); right ventricular ejection fraction was unchanged.

285 Impaired ventricular function (right or left ventricular ejection fraction) was associated with incre

286 In addition to reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, we identified other echoc

287 extracardiac sarcoidosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, we sought to (1) determin

288 th severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, we sought to assess incre

289 /=1 cm(2), Vmax >/=4 m/s) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were included.

290 in I levels in the setting of preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were not associated with i

291 right ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular ejection fraction were preserved after hTPV

292 lmonary edema, cardiac enlargement, and left ventricular ejection fraction were significantly (P<0.05

293 mary mitral regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent mitral valve

294 h placebo among patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing cardia

295 mary mitral regurgitation and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, who underwent mitral valv

296 equency methods can be used to document left ventricular ejection fraction with accuracy comparable w

297 generate almost continuous analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction without arterial cannulati

298 ent were increasing age, lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, worse post-procedural mit

299 esence of mitral regurgitation, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, younger age, and diabetes

300 included cable externalization, higher left ventricular ejection fraction, younger age, higher body