Skip to main content

Table 1 Patient characteristics

From: Three-dimensional dynamic morphology of the mitral valve in different forms of mitral valve prolapse – potential implications for annuloplasty ring selection

 

Barlow (n = 27)

FED (n = 32)

Control (n = 18)

Age (years)

51 ± 14a

62 ± 12

57 ± 16

Woman (n, %)

10 (37 %)

13 (41 %)

7 (39 %)

BSA (m2)

1.90 ± 0.19

1.95 ± 0.23

1.87 ± 0.24

Hypertension

13 (48 %)a

26 (82 %)b

10 (57 %)

Diabetes

3 (11 %)b

3 (9 %)b

0

EF (%)

66.2 ± 5.8

67.1 ± 6.1

65.4 ± 5.3

LV EDV (ml)

133.1 ± 49.9

128.2 ± 40.8

105.5 ± 29.4

LV ESV (ml)

44 ± 18.4

43.9 ± 12.7

37.5 ± 16.5

LAVi (ml/m2)

52.7 ± 13.7b

57.7 ± 29.5b

36.9 ± 8.6

PAPs (mm Hg)

38 ± 8a,b

47 ± 16b

29 ± 5

MR (n, %)

   

None

0b

0b

6 (33 %)

Mild

0b

0b

11 (61 %)

Moderate

11 (41 %)a,b

2 (6 %)

1 (6 %)

Severe

16 (59 %)a,b

30 (94 %)b

0

Flail

10 (37)a,b

26 (81 %)b

0

Cleft

6 (22 %)a,b

12 (38 %)b

0

  1. BSA indicates body surface area, EF ejection fraction, LV EDV left ventricular end diastolic volume, LV ESV left ventricular end systolic volume, LAVi left atrial volume indexed to BSA, PAPs systolic pulmonary artery pressure, MR mitral regurgitation
  2. aindicates significant difference between the Barlow and FED groups
  3. bindicates significant difference compared to control