Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2020 Oct 6;142(14):1361–1373. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046612

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

© 2020 The Authors.

Circulation is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.

PMC Copyright notice

Figure 5. — Hemodynamic parameters. A, Composite pressure tracings between control and experimental grafts, with shaded regions representing the SDs. B, Composite flow waveforms between groups. Shaded regions represent SD. C, Coronary blood flow did not differ significantly between groups (P=0.74). D, Uni-Graft (UG) conduits were associated with a significantly higher mean gradient as compared with control (C), anticommissural plication (ACP), Stanford modification (Sm), and Valsalva graft (VG; Tukey adjusted P≤0.01, 0.01, 0.02, and 0.02, respectively). E, All of the grafts had significantly lower effective orifice areas than the control aortic roots (P<0.01 for each). The UG group had significantly smaller orifice areas than the ACP and Sm groups (P=0.01 and P=0.02, respectively). F, Regurgitant fraction varied considerably between groups (P<0.01), with straight graft (SG) and UG groups having the lowest regurgitant fractions. The ACP method resulted in a significantly higher regurgitant fraction vs the control group (15.1 [95% CI, 12.4–17.9] vs 10.4 [95% CI, 7.4–13.4], P=0.04), whereas the other methods resulted in similar regurgitant fractions vs the native control. For C through F, the left panel denotes model-adjusted means with 95% CIs, and the right panel displays Tukey-adjusted pairwise differences in means with 95% CIs. Reported P values are adjusted for multiple comparisons with Tukey correction.