Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 1;22(10):1619–1627. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2020.1291

Table 2. Comparison of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Parameters among Patients with PA, Patients with EH, and HCs.

PA (n = 35) EH (n = 35) HC (n = 35) P (ANOVA) P (Post-Hoc Test)
PA vs. EH PA vs. HC EH vs. HC
EDVi, mL/m2 85.1 ± 13.0 75.9 ± 14.3 77.3 ± 12.8 0.010 0.005 0.015 0.681
ESVi, mL/m2 35.2 ± 9.8 30.7 ± 8.1 29.5 ± 7.0 0.013 0.027 0.005 0.529
LVEF, % 59.0 ± 7.3 59.7 ± 5.7 62.1 ± 4.4 0.081 NA NA NA
Massi, g/m2 65.8 ± 16.5 56.9 ± 12.1 44.1 ± 8.9 < 0.001 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
RV-EDVi, mL/m2 74.1 ± 13.5 68.7 ± 13.2 68.2 ± 15.4 0.154 NA NA NA
RV-ESVi, mL/m2 34.7 ± 9.8 31.4 ± 7.8 33.4 ± 10.5 0.340 NA NA NA
RVEF, % 53.5 ± 8.8 54.5 ± 5.7 52.8 ± 7.7 0.619 NA NA NA
Native T1, ms 1224 ± 39 1201 ± 47 1200 ± 44 0.041 0.031 0.027 0.954
ECV, % 26.2 ± 2.8 25.1 ± 3.4 25.8 ± 2.6 0.286 NA NA NA

All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. ANOVA = analysis of variance, ECV = extracellular volume, EDVi = end-diastolic volume index, EF = ejection fraction, EH = essential hypertension, ESVi = left ventricular end-systolic volume index, HC = healthy control, LV = left ventricular, Massi = left ventricular mass index, NA = not applicable, PA = primary aldosteronism, RV = right ventricular