Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Mar 17.
Published in final edited form as: Circulation. 2020 Jan 16;141(11):902–915. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.043930

Figure 6: Post-hoc analysis of HFpEF and HFrEF myocardium.

Figure 6:

A, Histological analysis of NF vs. HFrEF and HFpEF myocardium from hearts used for mechanical testing. Left: representative transverse sections of LV free wall (left) with Masson’s Trichrome staining (myocardium in red, fibrosis in blue). Right: quantification of cardiomyocyte cross sectional area and fibrosis. For each heart, n>100 cell were analyzed from 3 independent areas. N = 3, 5, and 4 hearts analyzed for NF, HFrEF, and HFpEF respectively. Statistical significance determined via one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni comparison, ***p<0.001. B, Comparison of viscoelastic properties between HFrEF and HFpEF trabecula prior to any treatment. C, The relative proportion of viscoelastic to elastic stress (Stress Relaxation/Steady State Stress) as a function of strain. For B and C, asterisks denote significant effect of etiology as determined via two-way ANOVA (with factors of etiology and strain). *p<0.05, ***p,0.001. D, Relative energy loss (energy dissipated/energy stored) was calculated from the ratio of energy dissipated (hysteresis loop) to elastic strain energy. Two-sample t-test, *p<0.05. E, Effect of colchicine on stress relaxation during ascending staircase of HFrEF and HFpEF trabecula. Statistical significance determined via two-way, repeated measures ANOVA, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.