Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 1;15(2):108–114. doi: 10.7150/ijms.21956

Table 3.

Comparison of left ventricular function and dyssynchrony between groups

Control (n=45) LVDD (n=29) HFpEF (n=47) HFrEF (n=31)
Te-SD (ms) 23±7 31±14 38±15* 39±16*
Ts-SD (ms) 33±12 49±16* 55±13* 65±19*#&
Global S (%) -19.94±2.35 -18.48±2.98 -15.53±3.19*# -8.82±1.95*#&
Global SRs (1/s) -1.13±0.18 -1.06±0.16 -0.79±0.20*# -0.46±0.13*#&
Global SRe (1/s) 1.56±0.32 1.19±0.27* 0.75±0.24*# 0.46±0.15*#&
Global Sra (1/s) 0.96±0.20 1.09±0.22* 0.84±0.28# 0.43±0.26*#&

*P<0.05 versus control group, #P<0.05 versus LVDD, &P<0.05 versus HFpEF. LVDD, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; Te-SD, standard deviation of time to peak early diastolic strain rate; Ts-SD, standard deviation of time to peak systolic strain.