Table 2.

ECV and results of correlation analysis with pressure gradient and ${\mathrm{E}}_{\mathrm{L}}^{\text{'}}$ for n=23 in HCM patients who underwent both 4D flow MRI and pre- and post-contrast T₁-mapping.

	Mean ECV (%)	LVOT pressure gradient		LVOT energy loss
		R2	P	R2	P
entire LV1	28 ± 4	0.44	<0.001	0.46	<0.001
Septum2	29 ± 4	0.38	<0.01	0.42	<0.001
Free Wall3	26 ± 4	0.34	<0.01	0.31	<0.01
P-value	0.14*	–

¹n=23, in 2 patients ECV was averaged over base and mid due to insufficient image quality in the apex

²n=23, for 5 subjects ECV was averaged over base and mid due to insufficient image quality in the apex

³n=22, ECV calculation was not feasible for 1 patient due to insufficient image quality, for 5 subjects ECV was averaged over base and mid due to insufficient image quality in the apex

^*Difference between ECV values for entire LV, Septum and Free Wall, Kruskal-Wallis test, significant when P<0.05