Please click here to obtain permission to reproduce this image.
Click on image to view larger version.
Figure 5 Scatterplots of relations between infarct size (IS) and area at risk (AAR) as percentages of total left ventricular (LV) mass in CNT (open squares), MPC (open triangles), RPC (open circles), SPT (solid squares), MPC+SPT (solid triangles) and RPC+SPT (solid circles) groups. The regression line of the MPC group (y = 0.20 x –0.01, r2 = 0.42) was significantly (p = 0.0001 by ANCOVA) less steep than that of the CNT group (y = 0.53 x –0.03, r2 = 0.43). The slope of the regression line in the RPC group (y = 0.22 x –0.01, r2 = 0.67) was significantly (p = 0.0001) less than that in the CNT group. There was no significant difference between the slopes of regression lines in MPC and RPC groups. The slope of the regression line in the MPC group was significantly (p = 0.0007) less than that in the MPC+SPT group (y = 0.51 x –0.05, r2 = 0.89). The slope of the regression line in the RPC group was significantly (p = 0.0001) less than that in the RPC+SPT group (y = 0.45 x –0.03, r2 = 0.78). There were no significant differences among the slope of regression lines in the CNT, SPT (y = 0.70 x –0.06, r2 = 0.94), MPC+SPT and RPC+SPT groups.
|
