Skip to main content

Table 4 Analyses of MFR and ESVI

From: Impaired myocardial perfusion is associated with increasing end-systolic- and end-diastolic volumes in patients with non-ischemic systolic heart failure: a cross-sectional study using Rubidium-82 PET/CT

Myocardial flow reserve

 

Univariable

Multivariable

Percent change per unita (95% CI)

P-value

Percent change per unit a (95% CI)

P-value

End-systolic volume/BSA (10 ml/m2)

− 3.7 (− 5.6; − 1.8)

< 0.001

−4.5 (− 7.9; − 0.9)

0.02

Male sex

−8.5 (− 20.0; 4.6)

0.19

3.9 (− 10.4; 20.5)

0.60

Age (10y)

− 8.0 (− 13.5; − 2.1)

< 0.01

−1.6 (− 8.7; 6.2)

0.68

Hypertension

0.8 (− 12.0; 15.4)

0.91

3.9 (− 9.4; 19.2)

0.58

Type 2 diabetes

−11.1 (− 24.3; 4.5)

0.15

−1.0 (− 16.1; 16.7)

0.90

Log2(NT-pro-BNP)

−3.8 (− 8.1; 0.7)

0.10

1.7 (− 3.6; 7.3)

0.54

Left ventricular bundle branch block

1.2 (− 11.3; 15.5)

0.85

5.7 (− 18.4; 9.1)

0.43

LVEF at rest (10%)

6.1 (1.9; 10.5)

< 0.01

− 4.5 (− 11.9; 3.5)

0.26

Atrial fibrillation during scan

−27.6 (− 37.7; − 16.0)

< 0.0001

−26.1 (− 38.4; − 11.4)

< 0.01

Increases in heart rate from rest to stress

1.0 (0.4; 1.5)

< 0.001

0.8 (0.0; 1.6)

0.049

CACS (100 units)

−1.6 (− 2.7; − 0.5)

< 0.01

−1.5 (− 2.6; − 0.3)

0.01

  1. aEstimated differences are expressed in relative terms, i.e. as a percentage. CI confidence interval, BSA body surface area. LVEF Left ventricular ejection fraction. CACS Coronary calcium score