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