Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1999; 34:1123-1128
© 1999 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nagueh, S. F.
Right arrow Articles by Spencer, W. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nagueh, S. F.
Right arrow Articles by Spencer, W. H., III

Changes in left ventricular filling and left atrial function six months after nonsurgical septal reduction therapy for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy

Sherif F. Nagueh, MD, FACCa, Nasser M. Lakkis, MD, FACCa, Katherine J. Middleton, RCTa, Donna Killip, RNa, William A. Zoghbi, MD, FACCa, Miguel A. Quiñones, MD, FACCa and William H. Spencer, III, MD, FACCa

a Cardiology Section, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA



View larger version (24K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 Left atrial (LA) stroke volume (SV) in the control group, and in the HOCM group pre- and post-NSRT (comparing controls with HOCM patients pre-NSRT: p < 0.001, 95% confidence intervals for difference of means: 10–22; comparing controls with HOCM patients post-NSRT: p < 0.001, 95% confidence intervals: 4.1–14.4).

 


View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Left atrial (LA) ejection force in the control group, and in the HOCM group pre- and post-NSRT (comparing controls with HOCM patients pre-NSRT: p < 0.001, 95% confidence intervals: 6.46–23.5; comparing controls with HOCM patients post-NSRT: p = 0.019, 95% confidence intervals: 1.3–13.6).

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3 Left atrial (LA) kinetic energy (KE) in the control group, and in the HOCM group pre- and post-NSRT (comparing controls with HOCM patients pre-NSRT: p < 0.001, 95% confidence intervals: 30–59.6; comparing controls with HOCM patients post-NSRT: p = 0.001, 95% confidence intervals: 9.3–36).

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 4 Regression plot of {Delta} LA pre-A volume versus {Delta} LA ejection force (pre- and post-NSRT).

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 5 Regression plot of {Delta} LA KE versus {Delta} LA SV (pre- and post-NSRT).

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 6 Regression plot of {Delta} LA KE versus {Delta} LA ejection force (pre- and post-NSRT).

 


View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 7 Regression plot of {Delta} LA maximal volume versus {Delta} LV pre-A pressure (pre- and post-NSRT).

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 8 Relation of changes in exercise duration to those in left ventricular passive filling volume.

 




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement