Table 2.
CMR Morpho-Functional Parameters.
| Parameter | Group 1 (Mean ± DS) | Group 2 (Mean ± DS) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EF % | 56.64 ± 11.79 | 58.52 ± 11.81 | 0.323 | |
| EDV (mL/m2) | 80.79 ± 20.32 | 76.24 ± 14.41 | 0.217 | |
| ESV (mL/m2) | 35.79 ± 13.18 | 31.76 ± 12.32 | 0.184 | |
| ESV (mL/m2) | 47.21 ± 15.87 | 44.28 ± 11.68 | 0.263 | |
| Mass (g/m2) | 63.92 ± 18.85 | 63.20 ± 19.25 | 0.455 | |
| Statistical test | ||||
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Hypothesis | p-value (Test) | |
| % contractility deficit | (mean ± DS) | (mean ± DS) | ||
| Segmentary | 14.28 (2/14) | 12.00 (3/25) | 14.28 > 12.00 | 0.364 (F) |
| Diffuse | 14.28 (2/14) | 8.00 (2/25) | 14.28 > 8.00 | 0.332 (F) |
| Morphological parameters | (mean ± DS) | (mean ± DS) | ||
| % of patient with LV dilatation | 7.14 (1/14) | 16.00 (4/25) | 7.14% < 16.00 | 0.308 (F) |
| Mean | 59.00 ± 0.00 | 60.50 ± 0.50 | 59.00 < 60.50 | 0.167 (T) |
| % of patients with LV thickening | 7.14 (1/14) | 8.00 (2/25) | 7.14 < 8.00 | 0.460 (F) |
| Mean | 14.00 ± 0.00 | 15.00 ± 1.00 | 14.00 < 15.00 | 0.333 (T) |
| T = Student T-test; F = Fisher’s exact test | ||||
| Correlations | Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient | p-value | ||
| G2: EF vs. LGE | −0.588 | 0.0020 | ||
| G1: EF vs. LGE | −0.328 | 0.252 | ||
| PERICARDIAL EFFUSION | ||||
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Hypothesis | p-value | |
| % Patients | 42.86 (6/14) | 40.00 (10/25) | 42.86 > 40.00 | 0.434 |
| % Segments of LV | 16.81 (40/238) | 11.53 (49/425) | 16.81 > 11.33 | 0.0365 |
| N.Patients/N. Segments | 35.00 (14/40) | 51.02 (25/49) | 35.00 < 51.02 | 0.0967 |
Results of CMR morpho-functional parameter analysis; in bold are reported “p-values” statistically significant. LV: left ventricle; EF: ejection fraction; EDV: end diastolic volume; ESV: end systolic volume; LGE: late gadolinium enhancement.