Skip to main content
. 2020 Feb 12;41(20):1903–1914. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa033

Table 1.

Baseline clinical characteristics

Total cohort (n = 100) NEF-HG AS (n = 40) LEF-HG AS (n = 14) LEF-LG AS (n = 26) PLF-LG AS (n = 16) P (comparison of all groups)
Age (years) 78 ± 7 78 ± 7 78 ± 9 79 ± 6 81 ± 5 0.37
Sex, female, n (%) 35 15 (38) 5 (36) 5 (19)d 9 (56)c 0.11
Coronary artery disease, n (%) 70 26 (65) 9 (64) 20 (77) 11 (69) 0.75
Prior MI, n (%) 22 3 (8)c 2 (14)c 12 (46)a  ,  b 3 (19) 0.002
Prior PCI, n (%) 36 11 (28)c 2 (14)c  ,  d 14 (54)a  ,  b 8 (50)b 0.03
Prior CABG, n (%) 11 4 (10) 1 (7) 4 (15) 1 (6) 0.76
Ischaemic cardiomyopathy, n (%) 15 0b  ,  c 3 (21)a 12 (46)a  ,  d 0c <0.001
Dilative cardiomyopathy, n (%) 2 0 0 2 (8) 0 0.14
Atrial fibrillation, n (%) 43 16 (40) 5 (36) 10 (38) 11 (69) 0.18
Peripheral vascular disease 27 11 (28) 3 (21) 9 (35) 2 (13) 0.44
Prior cerebral ischaemia event, n (%) 19 8 (20) 1 (7) 6 (23) 4 (25) 0.60
Chronic pulmonary disease, n (%) 21 6 (15) 1 (7) 9 (35) 5 (31) 0.10
Diabetes, n (%) 45 18 (45) 3 (21)a 14 (54)b 8 (50) 0.48
CKD (GFR <60 mL/min), n (%) 54 19 (48) 6 (43) 15 (58) 12 (75) 0.22
Creatinine (mg/dL) 1.23 ± 0.7 1.26 ± 1.0 1.09 ± 0.3 1.27 ± 0.4 1.27 ± 0.9 0.90
NT-proBNP (pg/mL) 4901 ± 9444 2206 ± 3411b  ,  c 10 061 ± 11 082a  ,  d 8228 ± 14 712a 2117 ± 1185b <0.0001
MLHFQ (points) 38 ± 18 34 ± 19d 42 ± 17 40 ± 14 46 ± 15a 0.09
6mwt distance (m) 213 ± 121 252 ± 95b  ,  c  ,  d   169 ± 147a 186 ± 117a 168 ± 125a 0.03

Two group comparisons: t-test for continuous variables and the Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. Comparison of all four groups: one-way analysis of variance for continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables.

6mwt, 6-min walking test; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; CKD, chronic kidney disease; MI, myocardial infarction; MLHFQ, Minnesota Living with Heart failure Quality of Life Questionnaire; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

a

P-value of <0.05 vs. NEF-HG AS.

b

P-value of <0.05 vs. LEF-HG AS.

c

P-value of <0.05 vs. LEF-LG AS.

d

P-value of <0.05 vs. PLF-LG AS.