Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
Bivariate fit of rest EF and stress EF for matched pairs.
- FIGURE 2.
Bland–Altman analysis of mean of stress/rest matched pairs vs. ΔEF shows no trend toward under- or overestimation of stress EF. Mean stress EF was 56.3%, mean rest EF was 56.9%, and mean difference in EF indicated by solid horizontal line was −0.65%. Outer dashed lines represent 95% limits of agreement, whereas inner dotted lines represent 95% CI of EF difference.
- FIGURE 3.
Bivariate fit of transient dilatation and ΔEF demonstrates weak negative correlation suggesting negative ΔEF may be associated with prolonged poststress transient dilatation.
- FIGURE 4.
One-way ANOVA of transient dilatation by stress method demonstrating, despite small overlap of 95% CIs (diamonds), a statistically significant difference between mean transient dilatation for exercise stress and combined exercise/persantin compared with persantin stress (P = 0.02).
- FIGURE 5.
One-way ANOVA of transient dilatation by scintigraphic findings demonstrating overlap of 95% CIs (diamonds) and no statistically significant difference between mean transient dilatation across scintigraphic findings (P = 0.07) despite the higher mean score of the reversible category.
Tables
Parameter EF (%) EDV (mL) ESV (mL) Stress mean 56.3 (54.3–58.3) 99.5 (93.2–105.9) 46.5 (41.8–51.2) Rest mean 56.9 (55.0–58.9) 100.2 (93.9–106.6) 46.2 (41.5–50.8) Stress/rest matched pairs (P) 0.15 0.53 0.69 Values in parentheses represent 95% CI. Overlap of stress/rest 95% CIs supports lack of statistically significant difference indicated by the matched pairs P value.
- TABLE 2
Statistical Significance and Relative Risk Calculated for Independent Predictors of a Negative ΔEF
Independent predictors of negative ΔEF Mean ΔEF (%) P value vs. mean of 0 Relative risk Stress to scan time < 45 min −0.96 0.04 1.2 Transient dilatation (>1) −1.6 0.01 1.3 Rest EDV 70–100 mL −2.1 0.007 1.1 Rest ESV 25–50 mL −1.6 0.03 1.5 Rest EF > 70% −2.7 0.04 1.2 Stress EF < 50% −2.6 0.003 1.4
