LVEDVLeft Ventricular End-Diastolic Volume
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
Furthermore, LVEDD and LVEDV significantly decreased following down-regulation of YAP to inhibit cardiac matrix remodeling (Figure 4I and J).
A small-sample, nonrandomized study by Riedlbauchova et al .[21] with 99 subjects showed that RVMS pacing could significantly reduce LVEDV. Unfortunately, the majority of relevant studies did not show that the NRVA pacing location could improve myocardial remodeling;[10],[12],[21] of these studies, the subgroup analysis in the SEPTAL CRT study only showed that the NRVA was not worse than the RVA.[22] The SPICE trial also did not show that the RVMS had an advantage on myocardial remodeling,[12] which might be the reason why the SPICE trial did not show an effect of the right ventricular lead on arrhythmias.
This study confirmed the efficacy of CRT in increasing EF of the left ventricle and decreasing both LVEDV and LVESV.
The LVEDV and LVESV increased and the LVEF decreased after the operation, which indicated cardiac dysfunction.
LV internal dimension systole (LVIDs), LV internal diastolic diameter (LVIDd), LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and LV fractional shortening (LVFS) were measured from the LV M-mode tracing with a sweep speed of 50 mm/s at the mid-papillary muscle level.
Echocardiographic Non-obese N1=256 Obese N2=87 parameter LVDD index (mm/[m.sup.2]) 26 [+ or -] 3 27 [+ or -] 2 LVEDV index (ml/[m.sup.2]) 62 [+ or -] 8 63 [+ or -] 9 IVS relative thickness 0.39 [+ or -] 0.03 0.44 [+ or -] 0.06 LVPW relative thickness 0.38 [+ or -] 0.04 0.42 [+ or -] 0.06 LV mass (g) 181 [+ or -] 47 225 [+ or -] 65 LV mass index (g/[m.sup.2]) 97 [+ or -] 19 119 [+ or -] 30 LA (mm) 36 [+ or -] 5 39 [+ or -] 6 LA volume index 31 [+ or -] 6 36 [+ or -] 8 (ml/[m.sup.2]) Echocardiographic p parameter LVDD index (mm/[m.sup.2]) NS LVEDV index (ml/[m.sup.2]) NS IVS relative thickness <0.001 LVPW relative thickness <0.001 LV mass (g) <0.001 LV mass index (g/[m.sup.2]) <0.001 LA (mm) <0.001 LA volume index <0.001 (ml/[m.sup.2]) Table 2.
WJMSs are also naturally chemoattracted to cardiac tissues, and as a result they are highly specific to cardiac tissues.5 Previous studies have shown that the transfer of bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMCs) had no significant impact on left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV), suggesting that BMMCs may have a limited effect on LV remodeling after acute MI.6
* control patients with baseline LVESV greater than 100 ml had the greatest deterioration (adverse remodeling) over 6 months in terms of worsening in both LVESV and left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV), and loss of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)
3.04 cm; p = 0.027), and the end diastolic LV volume (LVEDV) (39.2 vs.
The following parameters were below the level in the control group: left ventricle end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricle end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (Q), stroke volume index (SVI), left ventricle end-diastolic volume/left ventricular myocardial mass (LVEDV/LVMM), stroke index (SI), left ventricle diastolic function--maximum later peak velocity (peak A) (LVDF-[V.sub.a]), maximum blood flow velocity--aortic valve ([V.sub.max]-AoV), gradient (difference) of blood pressure--mitral valve ([Pg.sub.max]-MV), gradient (difference) of blood pressure--aortic valve ([Pg.sub.max]--AoV), and gradient (difference) of blood pressure - pulmonary valve ([Pg.sub.max]-PuV).
In addition, the decrease in preload decreases left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and pressure (LVEDP), thus promoting better coronary perfusion pressure due to a greater pressure gradient (coronary perfusion pressure = diastolic pressure--left ventricular end diastolic pressure).