Skip to main content
. 2017 May 19;16:67. doi: 10.1186/s12933-017-0549-z

Table 5.

Effects of 26-week treatment of exenatide versus insulin glargine on imaging parameters

Exenatide (n = 11) Insulin glargine (n = 12) P between groups
Baseline Follow-up P Baseline Follow-up P Baseline Follow-up
CMR
 LVEDV, mL 176 ± 42 175 ± 31 0.90 206 ± 38 206 ± 44 0.93 0.10 0.49
 LVESV, mL 86 ± 26 86 ± 25 1.00 104 ± 29 109 ± 31 0.11 0.13 0.25
 LV mass, g 110 ± 29 105 ± 20 0.31 113 ± 23 118 ± 23 0.27 0.82 0.05
 LVEF, % 51 ± 7 52 ± 7 0.85 50 ± 9 47 ± 10 0.06 0.58 0.11
 DCE, g 9.5 (1.0–11.4) 8.8 (2.2–14.0) 0.74 10.5 (5.8–21.7) 14.1 (5.3–27.4) 0.07 0.33 0.17
PET
 MBF, rest, mL min−1 g−1 0.92 ± 0.18 0.86 ± 0.11 0.33 0.80 ± 0.18 0.86 ± 0.17 0.31 0.15 0.57
 MBF, rest, corrected for RPP, mL min−1 g−1 1.25 ± 0.46 1.03 ± 0.26 0.04 1.02 ± 0.26 0.98 ± 0.16 0.59 0.16 0.45
 MBF, stress, mL min−1 g−1 2.29 ± 0.53 2.20 ± 0.59 0.57 2.00 ± 0.68 1.94 ± 0.62 0.46 0.28 0.79
 CFR 2.59 ± 0.82 2.60 ± 0.89 0.96 2.51 ± 0.72 2.24 ± 0.59 0.20 0.82 0.22
 CFR, corrected for RPP, mmHg min−1 2.03 ± 0.76 2.26 ± 0.79 0.19 2.04 ± 0.77 1.98 ± 0.62 0.65 0.96 0.16
 External work, Joule 1.06 ± 0.38 0.98 ± 0.20 0.35 1.12 ± 0.34 1.12 ± 0.34 0.99 0.70 0.21
 MVO2, mL g−1 min−1 0.08 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.01 0.52 0.08 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.02 0.23 0.28 0.48
 Myocardial efficiency, % 36 ± 8 38 ± 6 0.53 39 ± 8 40 ± 11 0.59 0.45 0.84

Data are mean ± SD or median (interquartile range). CMR cardiac magnetic resonance

LVEDV left ventricular enddiastolic volume, LVESV left ventricular endsystolic volume, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, DCE delayed contrast enhancement, PET positron emission tomography, MBF myocardial blood flow, RPP rate pressure product, CFR coronary flow reserve, MVO2 myocardial oxygen consumption