Key result
Myocardial stiffness was significantly higher in patients with HFrEF (7.6 ± 1.6 kPa) compared to both controls (1.3 ± 0.3 kPa, p < 0.01) and HFpEF patients (2.1 ± 0.4 kPa, p < 0.01).
Cross-Sectional (n=17)
Absolute Event Rate: 7.6% vs 1.3%
p-value: p=<0.01
Personalized LV mechanical modeling demonstrates that myocardial stiffness and end-diastolic fiber stress are significantly elevated in HFrEF compared to HFpEF and normal controls.
CMR-derived LV volume differences across HF phenotypes; hypothesis-generating for refined classification, prospective validation needed before clinical use.
p < 0.05 HFrEF vs. Control; †p < 0.05 HFpEF vs. Control; ‡p < 0.05 HFpEF vs. HFrEF.Abbreviations: diastasis (DS), end-diastole (ED), left ventricle (LV).Volumes and masses indexed to body surface area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2016) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure (n=17). Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) vs. Non-HF patients with normal LV function (Control) was evaluated on Global myocardial passive stiffness (p=<0.01). Myocardial stiffness was significantly higher in patients with HFrEF (7.6 ± 1.6 kPa) compared to both controls (1.3 ± 0.3 kPa, p < 0.01) and HFpEF patients (2.1 ± 0.4 kPa, p < 0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: