Skip to main content
. 2011 Dec 1;26(12):2201–2209. doi: 10.1007/s00467-011-1916-8

Table 4.

Differences between patients with regression of relative wall thickness (RWT) and in whom RWT was stable or increased. p Values of statistical significance (<0.05) and tendency (0.05–0.1) are shown

Decrease of RWT, n = 41 Increase or stabilization of RWT, n = 45 p
∆ WC (cm) −1.5 (−23.5–8.5) 0 (−8–18.5) 0.029
∆TG/HDL −0.10 (−5.77–1.47) −0.07 (−1.59–4.41) 0.03
∆LVMi (g/m 2.7) −7.4±7.3 0.5±6.6 < 0.0001
∆ urinary albumin excretion (mg/24h) −3.4 (−269.4–52) −0.9 (−103.3–128) 0.1
RWT1 (mm) 0.38 (0.23–0.67) 0.32 (0.25–0.41) 0.0001
RWT2 (mm) 0.33 (0.21–0.46) 0.36 (0.29–0.49) < 0.001
LVMi1 (g/m2.7) 41.7±10.1 35.5±10.6 0.008
LVMi2 (g/m 2.7) 34.2±6.8 36.2±8.2 ns
Number of patients with metabolic syndrome at start of treatment 7* 6 ns
Number of patients with metabolic syndrome after 12 months of treatment 1* 5 ns

RWT, relative wall thickness (RWT1, at start of treatment; RWT2, after 12 months of treatment); n, number of patients; WC, waist circumference; TG/HDL, triglycerides to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio; LVMi, left ventricular mass index; LVMi1, at start of treatment; LVMi2, after 12 months of treatment

*p = 0.04, Chi-squared = 4.17