These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8867297)

  • 1. Myocardial vulnerability to T wave shocks: relation to shock strength, shock coupling interval, and dispersion of ventricular repolarization.
    Fabritz CL; Kirchhof PF; Behrens S; Zabel M; Franz MR
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 1996 Mar; 7(3):231-42. PubMed ID: 8867297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Shock-induced dispersion of ventricular repolarization: implications for the induction of ventricular fibrillation and the upper limit of vulnerability.
    Behrens S; Li C; Fabritz CL; Kirchhof PF; Franz MR
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 1997 Sep; 8(9):998-1008. PubMed ID: 9300297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The zone of vulnerability to T wave shocks in humans.
    Swerdlow CD; Martin DJ; Kass RM; Davie S; Mandel WJ; Gang ES; Chen PS
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 1997 Feb; 8(2):145-54. PubMed ID: 9147699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reduced arrhythmogenicity of biphasic versus monophasic T-wave shocks. Implications for defibrillation efficacy.
    Behrens S; Li C; Kirchhof P; Fabritz FL; Franz MR
    Circulation; 1996 Oct; 94(8):1974-80. PubMed ID: 8873676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Induction of ventricular fibrillation by T-wave field-shocks in the isolated perfused rabbit heart: role of nonuniform shock responses.
    Kirchhof PF; Fabritz CL; Behrens S; Franz MR
    Basic Res Cardiol; 1997 Feb; 92(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 9062650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Timing of the upper limit of vulnerability is different for monophasic and biphasic shocks: implications for the determination of the defibrillation threshold.
    Behrens S; Li C; Franz MR
    Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 1997 Sep; 20(9 Pt 1):2179-87. PubMed ID: 9309741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Lidocaine increases the proarrhythmic effects of monophasic but not biphasic shocks.
    Sims JJ; Miller AW; Ujhelyi MR
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 2001 Dec; 12(12):1363-8. PubMed ID: 11797993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The vulnerable period for low and high energy T-wave shocks: role of dispersion of repolarisation and effect of d-sotalol.
    Kirchhof PF; Fabritz CL; Zabel M; Franz MR
    Cardiovasc Res; 1996 Jun; 31(6):953-62. PubMed ID: 8759252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Correlation of acute and chronic defibrillation threshold with upper limit of vulnerability determined in normal sinus rhythm.
    Birgersdotter-Green U; Undesser K; Fujimura O; Feld GK; Kass RM; Mandel WJ; Peter CT; Chen PS
    J Interv Card Electrophysiol; 1999 Jul; 3(2):155-61. PubMed ID: 10387143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effects of long-term amiodarone treatment on ventricular-fibrillation vulnerability and defibrillation efficacy in response to monophasic and biphasic shocks.
    Behrens S; Li C; Franz MR
    J Cardiovasc Pharmacol; 1997 Oct; 30(4):412-8. PubMed ID: 9335398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Relation of atrial refractoriness to upper and lower limits of vulnerability for atrial fibrillation/flutter following implantable ventricular defibrillator shocks.
    Katz A; Sweeney RJ; Gill RM; Reid PR; Prystowsky EN
    Circulation; 1999 Sep; 100(10):1125-30. PubMed ID: 10477539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of cardiac compression on defibrillation efficacy and the upper limit of vulnerability.
    Idriss SF; Anstadt MP; Anstadt GL; Ideker RE
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 1995 May; 6(5):368-78. PubMed ID: 7551306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Successful implantation of cardiac defibrillators without induction of ventricular fibrillation using upper limit of vulnerability testing.
    Green UB; Garg A; Al-Kandari F; Ungab G; Tone L; Feld GK
    J Interv Card Electrophysiol; 2003 Feb; 8(1):71-5. PubMed ID: 12652181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Terikalant and barium decrease the area of vulnerability to ventricular fibrillation induction by T-wave shocks.
    Qi X; Varma P; Newman D; Mamalias N; Dorian P
    J Cardiovasc Pharmacol; 2002 Feb; 39(2):242-50. PubMed ID: 11791010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. High dispersion of ventricular repolarization after an implantable defibrillator shock predicts induction of ventricular fibrillation as well as unsuccessful defibrillation.
    Moubarak JB; Karasik PE; Fletcher RD; Franz MR
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2000 Feb; 35(2):422-7. PubMed ID: 10676690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Optimal strength and number of shocks at upper limit of vulnerability testing required to predict high defibrillation threshold without inducing ventricular fibrillation.
    Takami K; Yoshida A; Fukuzawa K; Takei A; Kiuchi K; Kanda G; Kumagai H; Takami M; Torii-Tanaka S; Itoh M; Imamura K; Fujiwara R; Suzuki A; Nakanishi T; Yamashita S; Matsumoto A; Hirata K
    Circ J; 2013; 77(10):2490-6. PubMed ID: 23877733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effects of lidocaine on shock-induced vulnerability.
    Li L; Nikolski V; Efimov IR
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 2003 Oct; 14(10 Suppl):S237-48. PubMed ID: 14760929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of rapid pacing and T-wave scanning on the relation between the defibrillation and upper-limit-of-vulnerability dose-response curves.
    Malkin RA; Idriss SF; Walker RG; Ideker RE
    Circulation; 1995 Sep; 92(5):1291-9. PubMed ID: 7648678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Epicardial sock mapping following monophasic and biphasic shocks of equal voltage with an endocardial lead system.
    Usui M; Callihan RL; Walker RG; Walcott GP; Rollins DL; Wolf PD; Smith WM; Ideker RE
    J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol; 1996 Apr; 7(4):322-34. PubMed ID: 8777480
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Assessment of adequate safety margin using single coupling interval-upper limit of vulnerability test.
    Patel MB; Pandya K; Thakur RK
    Pacing Clin Electrophysiol; 2014 Jan; 37(1):95-103. PubMed ID: 24033830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.