Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Sep 1;76(9):1051–1064. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.07.009

TABLE 5.

LA Structure and Function

Control Subjects (n = 146) HFpEFno-AF (n = 181) HFpEFparox-AF (n = 49) HFpEFperm-AF (n = 48) p Value
LA reservoir function
 Volume/strain
  LA maximal volume, ml 44 ± 16* 52 ± 19* 71 ± 30* 97 ± 41* <0.0001
  LA minimum volume, ml 18 ± 9* 24 ± 15* 44 ± 24* 74 ± 33* <0.0001
  LA reservoir volume, ml 27 ± 9 28 ± 10 28 ± 15 23 ± 18 0.06
  LA expansion index, % 163 (122–209) 147 (89–200) 72 (39–104)* 34 (15–54)* <0.0001
  LA total EF, % 62 ± 11* 57 ± 15* 40 ± 16* 24 ± 14* <0.0001
  LA reservoir strain, % 40 ± 13* 35 ± 15* 23 ± 11* 12 ± 6* <0.0001
 Pressure, mm Hg
  LA x-v height rest 5 ± 3* 8 ± 6* 10 ± 7 13 ± 7§ <0.0001
  LA x-v height exercise 9 ± 5* 19 ± 10§ 24 ± 12 22 ± 11 <0.0001
 Pressure-volume relation
  LA volume compliance, ml/mm Hg 5.5 (3.9–9.5)* 4.3 (2.4– 8.5)* 2.2 (1.4–4.2) 1.7 (0.9–3.5)§ <0.0001
  LA strain compliance, %/mm Hg 9.3 (5.7–13.7)* 5.7 (2.8–9.6)* 1.7 (1.1–4.0)* 1.2 (0.7–1.4)* <0.0001
LA conduit function
 Volume/strain
  LA pre A volume, ml 30 ± 13* 37 ± 16* 56 ± 25* <0.0001
  LA passive volume, ml 14 ± 7 15 ± 8 16 ± 12 0.5
  LA passive EF, % 33 ± 13 30 ± 14 22 ± 13* <0.0001
  LA conduit strain, % 22 ± 10* 19 ± 11 14 ± 6 <0.0001
 Pressure, mm Hg
  LA v-y height rest 4 ± 3* 7 ± 7* 10 ± 7* 14 ± 8 * <0.0001
  LA v-y height exercise 8 ± 5* 18 ± 10* 24 ± 12 23 ± 11§ <0.0001
LA booster function
 Volume/strain
  LA booster volume, ml 13 ± 6 14 ± 7 13 ± 10 0.5
  LA active EF, % 42 ± 11 39 ± 14 25 ± 17* <0.0001
  LA booster strain, % 17 ± 8 17 ± 9 10 ± 6* <0.0001
 Pressure, mm Hg
  LA y-a height rest 3.2 ± 1.9 5.0 ± 2.6§ 4.3 ± 3.0§ <0.0001
  LA y-a height exercise 5.7 ± 3.8 7.6 ± 4.8§ 8.0 ± 6.6§ 0.0007

Values are mean ± SD or median (interquartile range). Correction for multiple hypothesis testing was not performed.

*

p < 0.05 vs. all by Tukey’s test.

p < 0.05 vs. HFpEFparox-AF by Tukey’s test.

p < 0.05 vs. HFpEFperm-AF by Tukey’s test.

§

p < 0.05 vs. control subjects by Tukey’s test.

p < 0.05 vs. sinus HFpEF by Tukey’s test.