Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 29;23:48. doi: 10.1186/s12968-021-00736-1

Table 6.

Models predicting change in LGE severity

Slice Factor Odds ratio and 95% CI p value
Change in global severity score (feature tracking)
 Base (n = 27) Native T1 1.2 [ 0.3, 5.0] 0.78
εcc 2.2 [0.6, 7.7] 0.21
εls 1.8 [0.8, 3.9] 0.15
LGE at CMR1 0.6 [0.2, 1.9] 0.37
 Mid (n = 30) Native T1 1.2 [0.5, 2.7] 0.64
εcc 0.3 [0.1, 1.1] 0.07
εls 3.0 [1.3, 6.7] 0.008
LGE at CMR1 0.3 [0.1, 1.5] 0.13
 Global (n = 33) Native T1 1.4 [0.6, 3.3] 0.44
εcc 0.5 [0.2, 1.2] 0.14
εls 3.8 [ 1.0, 14.2] 0.048
LGE at CMR1 0.5 [0.1, 1.7] 0.25
Change in global severity score (myocardial tagging)
 Base (n = 42) Native T1 1.3 [ 0.5, 3.2] 0.59
εcc-tag 0.8 [0.4, 1.8] 0.56
LGE at CMR1 0.4 [0.1, 1.3] 0.13
 Mid (n = 44) Native T1 1.5 [0.9, 2.4] 0.11
εcc-tag 0.6 [0.3, 1.2] 0.15
LGE at CMR1 0.5 [0.2, 1.6] 0.22
 Global (n = 38) Native T1 1.5 [0.7, 2.9] 0.27
εcc-tag 0.5 [0.2, 1.2] 0.12
LGE at CMR1 0.3 [0.1, 1.2] 0.10
Change in FWHM (feature tracking)
 Base (n = 27) Native T1 1.2 [0.3, 4.8] 0.83
εcc 1.5 [0.4, 6.8] 0.57
εls 1.9 [0.7, 4.9] 0.19
LGE at CMR1 0.6 [0.1, 3.7] 0.57
 Mid (n = 30) Native T1 0.8 [0.4, 1.6] 0.55
εcc 0.4 [0.1, 1.9] 0.25
εls 1.5 [0.5, 4.6] 0.48
LGE at CMR1 0.1 [0, 1.5] 0.10
 Global (n = 33) Native T1 0.9 [0.4, 2.2] 0.84
εcc 0.7 [0.2, 2.7] 0.61
εls 2.0 [0.9, 4.5] 0.10
LGE at CMR1 0.1 [0, 0.8] 0.033
Change in FWHM (myocardial tagging)
 Base (n = 36) Native T1 1.7 [ 0.7, 4.1] 0.26
εcc-tag 0.6 [0.5, 0.9] 0.003
LGE at CMR1 0.3 [0.1, 1.6] 0.16
 Mid (n = 40) Native T1 1.6 [0.7, 3.8] 0.32
εcc-tag 0.4 [0.1, 0.9] 0.036
LGE at CMR1 0.2 [0.1, 1.1] 0.058
 Global (n = 34) Native T1 1.8 [0.7, 4.6] 0.21
εcc-tag 0.2 [0.1, 0.7] 0.01
LGE at CMR1 0.2 [0.03, 1.1] 0.075

Bold italic values are significant for p ≤ 0.05