Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Feb 2.
Published in final edited form as: Braz J Med Biol Res. 2010 Mar 6;43(4):377–389. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2010007500014

Table 1.

Electrocardiographic analysis of C57BL/6 mice.

Control
(N = 25)		 Sham-operated
(N = 7)		 Myocardial infarction
(N = 10)
Heart rate (bpm) 592 ± 105 679 ± 80 532 ± 78+
Amplitude
 P wave (mV) 0.088 ± 0.033 0.118 ± 0.036 0.147 ± 0.068
 Q wave (mV) 0.003 ± 0.014 0.031 ± 0.045 0.221 ± 0.276*+
 QRS complex (mV) 0.608 ± 0.254 0.760 ± 0.392 0.357 ± 0.316+
 ST segment (mV) 0.004 ± 0.003 0.084 ± 0.087 0.397 ± 0.363*+
 T wave (mV) 0.106 ± 0.063 −0.024 ± 0.200 −0.140 ± 0.270*
Duration
 P wave (ms) 11 ± 2 12 ± 1 14 ± 2*
 PR interval (ms) 34 ± 7 32 ± 5 37 ± 6
 QRS (ms) 11 ± 2 14 ± 3 15 ± 2*
 QT interval (ms) 22 ± 6 39 ± 13 68 ± 49*+
 QTc 71 ± 13 177 ± 147 201 ± 143*

Data are reported as means ± SD. QTc = QT corrected interval.

*

P < 0.05 vs control;

+

P < 0.05 vs sham-operated (one-way ANOVA).