Skip to main content
. 2017 Sep 21;7:12050. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11416-5

Table 2.

Echocardiographic parameters in aged mice after six weeks of VLDL injection.

Control (n = 18) nVLDL (n = 17) msVLDL (n = 19) P value
HR (bpm) 425 ± 28 424 ± 46 410 ± 67 0.7243
Measurement (mm)
Ao Root 1.91 ± 0.12 1.99 ± 0.10 1.98 ± 0.14 0.0992
LA 2.15 ± 0.17 2.23 ± 0.25 2.62 ± 0.33 <0.0001¶#
IVSd 1.03 ± 0.16 1.04 ± 0.12 1.03 ± 0.14 0.9307
LVIDd 3.78 ± 0.27 3.90 ± 0.20 4.08 ± 0.46 0.0338
LVPWd 0.93 ± 0.13 0.93 ± 0.16 0.86 ± 0.12 0.2253
LVIDs 2.37 ± 0.33 2.50 ± 0.24 2.79 ± 0.46 0.0038
Calculation
EF (%) 67.6 ± 7.9 66.0 ± 5.8 60.3 ± 7.3 0.0076
FS (%) 37.4 ± 6.2 36.0 ± 4.4 32.0 ± 4.9 0.0093
LV Mass (mg) 142.2 ± 23.6 151.1 ± 23.2 152.6 ± 29.4 0.4372
LVEDV (µL) 61.6 ± 9.7 66.1 ± 8.0 74.5 ± 19.6 0.0222
LVESV (µL) 20.2 ± 6.5 22.6 ± 5.1 30.4 ± 11.9 0.0019¶#

HR, heart rate during the echocardiographic measurement; Ao Root, aortic root diameter; LA, left atrium diameter; IVSd, end-diastolic interventricular septum thickness; LVIDd, end-diastolic LV internal dimension; LVPWd, end-diastolic LV posterior wall thickness; LVIDs, end-systolic LV internal dimension; EF, ejection of fraction; FS, fraction of shortening; LV, left ventricle; LVEDV, LV end-diastolic volume; LVESD, LV end-systolic volume. Comparisons significant for msVLDL vs Control. #Comparison significant for msVLDL vs nVLDL.