Table 3. Comparison of changes in ejection fraction between protocols.
| Protocols compared | 1 vs. 2 | 1 vs. 3 | 2 vs. 3 | 3 vs. 5 | 3 vs. 8 | 4 vs. 5 | 6 vs. 7 | 4 vs. 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter type changed | Voltage | Voltage | Voltage | Pulse length | Ischemia | Pulse frequency | Pulse frequency | Pulse number |
| Values compared | 50 vs. 250V | 50 vs. 500V | 250 vs. 500V | 70 vs. 100 μsec | Protocol 3 vs. MI | 1 Vs. 2 Hz. | 2 vs. 4 Hz. | 20 vs. 10 pulses |
| P value of EF comparison | 0.3 | 0.02* | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.35 | 0.23 | 0.75 | 0.84 |
| P value of FS comparison | 0.35 | 0.09 | 0.36 | 0.21 | 0.03* | 0.21 | 0.75 | 0.89 |
The changes in EF and FS on day 28 following intervention were compared between pairs of protocols and were different in only one parameter in order to isolate the effect of changing certain parameters on functional damage. Note that only voltage had a significant effect on EF (protocol 1 vs. 3). Longer pulse length demonstrated an intermediate effect on EF (protocol 3 vs. 5). FS changed significantly only between IRE by protocol 3 compared with MI. Significant P-values (P < .05) were marked in asterisk.