. 2019 Oct 9;21(9):1039–1046. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jez241

Table 3.

CMR parameters for patients with and without a composite endpoint

	All patients (n = 100)		Composite endpoint (n = 10)		No composite endpoint (n = 90)		P-value event vs. no event in stress
	Rest	Stress	Rest	Stress	Rest	Stress	P-value event vs. no event in stress
Rest CMR
LV EDV (mL/m²)	80 ± 13	78 ± 14^a	84 ± 15	84 ± 14	79 ± 12	77 ± 14^a	0.15
ESV (mL/m²)	33 ± 9	22 ± 8^a	35 ± 10	26 ± 12^a	33 ± 8	22 ± 8	0.12
SV (mL/m²)	47 ± 8	55 ± 9^a	49 ± 10	58 ± 8^a	46 ± 8	55 ± 9^a	0.34
EF (%)	59 ± 7	72 ± 7^a	58 ± 8	70 ± 9^a	59 ± 7	72 ± 7^a	0.34
RV EDV (mL/m²)	130 ± 39	125 ± 38^a	123 ± 43	121 ± 35	130 ± 39	126 ± 38^a	0.70
ESV (mL/m²)	67 ± 26	51 ± 23^a	58 ± 26	47 ± 22^a	68 ± 26	51 ± 23^a	0.64
SV (mL/m²)	63 ± 17	75 ± 20^a	65 ± 22	74 ± 20^a	62 ± 17	75 ± 20^a	0.86
EF (%)	49 ± 7	61 ± 8^a	51 ± 5	62 ± 8^a	49 ± 8	61 ± 9^a	0.60
Mass volume ratio (g/mL)	0.18 ± 0.05		0.18 ± 0.04		0.19 ± 0.05		0.86
PR (%)	29 (10–44) (n = 95)	30 (10–44) (n = 80)	17 (9–27) (n = 10)	17 (6–32) (n = 9)	32 (9–45) (n = 85)	33 (11–46) (n = 71)	0.14
Relative change during stress
LV EDV (%)		−3 ± 9		0 ± 6		−3 ± 9	0.22
ESV (%)		−35 ± 14		−27 ± 16		−36 ± 14	0.062
SV (%)		20 ± 15		22 ± 17		20 ± 15	0.74
EF (%)		24 ± 12		21 ± 15		24 ± 11	0.43
RV EDV (%)		−3 ± 9		2 ± 11		−3 ± 9	0.13
ESV (%)		−25 ± 13		−17 ± 15		−26 ± 13	0.045
SV (%)		21 ± 17		18 ± 18		21 ± 17	0.61
EF (%)		24 ± 13		17 ± 12		25 ± 13	0.052
Abnormal stress response, n (%)	7 (7.0)		3 (30.0)		4 (4.4)		0.021

Results are given as mean (standard deviation) or as median (interquartile range) or as counts (percentages).

No statistical significant differences at rest between the group with and without a composite endpoint, no significant differences were found.

CMR, cardiovascular magnetic resonance; EDV, end-diastolic volume; EF, ejection fraction; ESV, end-systolic volume; LV, left ventricle; PR, pulmonary regurgitation; RV, right ventricle; SV, stroke volume.

A statistical significant difference between rest vs. stress within the subgroup.