Table 1.

Summary of statistical data analysis.

	LMC	LQT1	LQT2
Max σAPD (Figs 1–3)	Fig. 1. Under Random Stimulation: σAPD = 5.55 ms ΔAPDmax-min = 23.4 ms Under S1S1 Stimulation: CL = 210 ms σAPD = 3.75 ms ΔAPDmax-min = 15.2 ms	Fig. 2. Under Random Stimulation: σAPD = 3.91 ms ΔAPDmax-min = 12.2 ms Under S1S1 Stimulation: CL = 240 ms σAPD = 2.62 ms ΔAPDmax-min = 12.2 ms	Fig. 3. Under Random Stimulation: σAPD = 10.9 ms ΔAPDmax-min = 38.0 ms Under S1S1 Stimulation: CL = 270 ms σAPD = 7.2 ms ΔAPDmax-min = 26.0 ms
Beat-to-beat APD variation (standard deviation of APD during random stimulation,σbeat-to-beat) (Figs 1–3)	5.8 ± 1.2 ms n = 5 hearts in Fig. 1	3.2 ± 0.9 ms n = 5 hearts in Fig. 2	8.8 ± 2.0 ms n = 5 hearts in Figs 1–3 LMC vs. LQT2, p < 0.05 LQT1 vs. LQT2, p < 0.05 (Student’s t-test respectively)
ΔCL = CLn−1 – CLn−2 at maximum APD dispersion (paired t-test between CLn−1 and CLn−2) (Fig. 4A)	5.3 ± 17.7 ms p = 0.2084 n = 5 hearts, 10 scans	5.0 ± 18.6 ms p = 0.2084 n = 5 hearts, 10 scans	17.7 ± 14.1 ms CLn−1 > CLn−2, p < 0.01 n = 5 hearts, 10 scans
Correlation of σAPD vs. ΔCL under random stimulation (Fig. 4B)	0.008 ± 0.002 r = 0.23 ± 0.14 n = 4 hearts LMC vs. LQT1, p < 0.05	0.002 ± 0.004 r = 0.10 ± 0.16 n = 4 hearts	0.022 ± 0.008 r = 0.51 ± 0.17 n = 4 hearts LMC vs. LQT2, p < 0.05 LQT1 vs. LQT2, p < 0.05 (Student’s t-test respectively)
Correlation between ΔCL and σAPD under S1S2S3 stimulation (Fig. 4C)	r = 0.68 ± 0.09 p < 0.05 n = 4 hearts	N/A	r = 0.79 ± 0.14 p < 0.01 n = 4 hearts
Slope of σAPD vs. ΔCL under S1S2S3 stimulation (Fig. 4C)	0.005 ± 0.001 n = 4 hearts	N/A	0.035 ± 0.020 LMC vs. LQT2, p < 0.01 n = 4 hearts (Student’s t-test)
Coefficient α1 under random stimulation in Fig. 5C (Statistical differences were found by one-way ANOVA test at p = 0.05 level)	0.23 ± 0.06 n = 6 hearts	0.17 ± 0.02 n = 6 hearts LMC vs LQT1, p = 0.029 (Student’s t-test)	0.32 ± 0.06 n = 6 hearts LMC vs LQT2, p = 0.039 LQT1 vs LQT2, p < 0.00003 (Student’s t-test respectively)
Coefficient α2 under random stimulation in Fig. 5C (Statistical differences were found by one-way ANOVA test at p = 0.05 level)	−0.068 ± 0.04505 n = 6 hearts	0.007 ± 0.051 n = 6 hearts LMC vs LQT1, p = 0.023 (Student’s t-test)	−0.053 ± 0.021 n = 6 hearts LQT1 vs LQT2, p = 0.025 LMC vs LQT2, p = 0.461 (Student’s t-test)
Standard deviation of restitution slope map under random stimulation in Fig. 5D	0.030 ± 0.014 n = 4 hearts	0.029 ± 0.008 n = 4 hearts	0. 064 ± 0.025 n = 4 hearts LMC vs. LQT2, p < 0.05 (Student’s t-test)
Correlation between α1 and α2 in Fig. 5E	−0.07 ± 0.15 n = 6 hearts	N/A	−0.27 ± 0.10 n = 6 hearts