Table 1.
Mean BMI and Percentage Weight Change
| Variable | CON (n=6) | HVM (n=8) | CON vs HVM | HVMC (n=5) | CON vs HVMC | HVM vs HVMC | All 3 Groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ameroid | 45.5±3.9 | 48.8±2.2 | P=0.91 | 44.1±2.4 | P>0.99 | P=0.87 | P=0.48 |
| EV injection | 39.1±2.2 | 49.9±1.6 | P=0.01 | 49.0±1.6 | P=0.06 | P>0.99 | P<0.01 |
| Harvest | 46.6±4.4 | 53.6±1.7 | P=0.93 | 46.4±3.4 | P>0.99 | P=0.39 | P=0.30 |
| % Change in weight | 31.6±8.1 | 46.5±2.2 | P=0.11 | 26.9±4.4 | P>0.99 | P=0.04 | P=0.01 |
Data are given as mean±SEM BMI (mg/kg2). Last row demonstrates percentage weight change for each group from the ameroid to the harvest±SEM. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Kruskal‐Wallis, with P<0.05 considered as significant. BMI indicates body mass index; CON, control group (high‐fat diet with myocardial vehicle injection); EV, extracellular vesicle; HVM, high‐fat diet with myocardial EV injection group; HVMC, HVM and calpain inhibition group.