2). All geometric measurements were corrected (c) by the height of each patient. Fig. 2 The distance between the MJAM and the

head of each PM was defined as the PM distance. PM: selleck chemicals papillary muscle, MJAM: medial junction of the aortic and mitral annuli, PPMD: posterior papillary muscle distance, APMD: anterior papillary muscle distance, APPMD: … Intra-observer variability of PM distance and MR severity APMD, PPMD, and ERO were measured by one observer and the measurement was repeated by the same observer to check intra-observer variability. Statistical analysis Data were analyzed using standard statistical software [Statistical Package for the Social Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Sciences (SPSS) for windows version 12, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA]. Continuous data were expressed as mean and Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical standard deviation and categorical data were expressed as number and percentage. Statistical comparisons of continuous variables between groups were performed by Student’s t-test. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed

to identify predictors of FMR development. Linear regression analysis and partial correlation tests with Pearson’s method was performed to assess relations of parameters to ERO in the patients with FMR. Stepwise multivariate regression Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical analysis was performed to identify independent factors associated with FMR. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. Intra-observer variability Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of MPR guided PM distance measurement and ERO calculation with PISA method were tested by calculating Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results Baseline characteristics The mean LV EF was 28 ± 8% in patients with FMR and 29 ± 7% in patients without FMR. There were no differences in the clinical characteristics between two patient Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical groups (Table 1). Table 1 Clinical characteristics of the study population Echocardiographic parameters between

two patients groups The patients with FMR had significantly higher DI (1.43 ± 0.47 vs. 1.12 ± 0.37, p < 0.018), cMVTa (1.23 ± 0.40 vs. 0.89 ± 0.19 cm2/m, p < 0.005), cAPMD (2.65 ± 0.21 vs. 2.59 ± 0.19 cm/m, p < 0.05), cPPMD (2.38 ± 0.22 vs. 2.27 ± 0.18 cm/m, p < 0.05), LV sphericity (1.52 ± 0.22 vs. 1.35 ± 0.13, p < 0.005), Aα (35 ± 8° vs. 26 ± 5°, p < 0.01), and Pα (65 ± 10° vs. 56 ± 8°, p < 0.01) than the patients without FMR. However, there was Cell press no significant differences of cMAA (4.58 ± 0.98 vs. 4.55 ± 1.30 cm2/m, p = 0.205) and cAPPMD (1.64 ± 0.24 vs. 1.62 ± 0.43 cm/m, p = 0.872) between the 2 patient groups (Table 2). Table 2 Echocardiographic parameters By multiple logistic regression analysis, cMVTa (p = 0.017) was found to be the strongest predictor of FMR development in DCM (Table 3). Table 3 Multiple logistic regression analysis for predictors of FMR Relationships of echocardiographic parameters with ERO in patients with FMR cMVTa (r = 0.868, p < 0.001), cAPMD (r= 0.801, p = 0.005), cPPMD (r = 0.742, p = 0.005), Aα (r = 0.454, p = 0.

No related posts.