. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Mar 22.

Published in final edited form as: J Nucl Cardiol. 2018 Feb 7;25(3):742–753. doi: 10.1007/s12350-018-1200-4

Table 2.

LVEDVi, LVESVi, LVEF, STS, and TPD in the control group and patients with subacute or old MI

	Control group (n = 95)	Subacute MI group (n = 54)	P value*	Old MI group (n = 38)	P value*	P value^‡

LVEDVi (ml/m²)	43.49 ± 9.52	64.44 ± 26.14	< .001	84.75 ± 44.16	< .001	< .01
LVESVi (ml/m²)	13.74 ± 5.90	33.70 ± 23.99	< .001	55.44 ± 43.89	< .001	< .01
LVEF (%)	69.52 ± 8.20	52.43 ± 13.73	< .001	41.50 ± 16.69	< .001	< .01
STS	0 (0–0)	6.0 (1.0–13.5)	< .001	12.5 (7.0–24.75)	< .001	< .01
TPD (%)	0 (0–0)	12.72 ± 12.21	< .001	21.66 ± 15.30	< .001	< .01

MI, Myocardial infarction; LVEDVi, left ventricular end-diastolic volume index; LVESVi, left ventricular end-systolic volume index; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; STS, summed thickening score; TPD, total perfusion deficit

P Comparison between the control group and the two MI subgroups

^‡

P Comparison between the subacute and old MI group