. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Dec 15.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Cardiol. 2016 Sep 15;118(12):1855–1860. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.077

Table 2.

Comparison of NO_m levels between participants with Heart Failure with Reduced, Preserved, and Recovered Ejection Fraction

	HFpEF vs. HFrEF Estimate^* (95% CI); P	Recovered-HF vs. HFrEF Estimate^* (95% CI); P	HFpEF vs. Recovered-HF Estimate^* (95% CI); P
Unadjusted	0.87 (0.72, 1.06); 0.16	1.08 (0.94, 1.24); 0.27	0.96 (0.81, 1.14); 0.64
Model 1	0.82 (0.67, 0.99); 0.041	1.07 (0.93, 1.24); 0.34	0.87 (0.74, 1.04); 0.14
Model 2	0.79 (0.65, 0.98); 0.030	1.10 (0.95, 1.28); 0.21	0.88 (0.74, 1.05); 0.15

CI, confidence interval.

Estimate corresponds to the ratio of average NO_m levels between groups, obtained by exponentiating the regression coefficient from a linear regression model for log-transformed NO_m levels.

Model 1: Age, sex, race, tobacco use, body mass index, and eGFR category.

Model 2: Model 1, plus ischemic etiology, history of hypertension, history of hypercholesterolemia or statin use, history of diabetes or use of diabetes medications, and systolic blood pressure.