Skip to main content
. 2010 Dec 5;2011:786912. doi: 10.4061/2011/786912

Table 2.

Comparison of cohorts 1 and 2.

Cohort 1: 1187 patients Cohort 2: 245 patients Statistical significance
Age 59.13 yrs ± 13.9 60.1 yrs ± 13.6 NS

N % N %
Male 547 46.1 107 43.7 NS
Female 640 53.9 138 56.3

Adverse features N % N %
 High PP ≥ 50 mmHg 736 62.0 161 65.7 NS
 High DSBP ≥ 135 mmHg 703 59.2 146 59.6 NS
 High DDBP ≥ 85 mmHg 515 43.4 101 41.2 NS
 High NSBP ≥ 120 mmHg 639 54.0 138 56.3 NS
 High NDBP ≥ 75 mmHg 404 34.0 83 33.9 NS
 Absent ND ≤ 10% 677 57.0 134 54.7 NS
 High EM SBP ≥ 140 mmHg 396 33.4 74 30.2 NS
 High MS ≥ 20/15 mmHg 552 46.5 106 43.3 NS

 No. adverse features N % N % NS
 0 63 5.3 13 5.3 NS
 1 114 9.6 22 9.0 NS
 2 177 14.9 35 14.3 NS
 3 168 14.2 43 17.6 NS
 4 176 14.8 35 14.3 NS
 5 182 15.3 37 15.1 NS
 6 151 12.7 30 12.2 NS
 7 119 10.0 23 9.4 NS
 8 37 3.1 7 2.9 NS

Adverse Features groups N % N %
 0–2 354 29.8 70 28.6
 3–5 526 44.3 115 46.9 NS
 6–8 307 25.9 60 24.5

There was no significant difference between the two cohorts.

(Oneway Anova was used for comparing cohort 1 and 2 ages; cross-tabulation with chi-square Test was used to compare adverse features; no. of adverse features and adverse features groups and gender).