Skip to main content

Advertisement

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