Skip to main content

Table 1 Clinical profiles of the three groups of patients

From: Comparison of modified total leaflet preservation, posterior leaflet preservation, and no leaflet preservation techniques in mitral valve replacement – a retrospective study

  Group A (n = 62) Group B (n = 80) Group C (n = 38) p value
Female sex 39 (63%) 44 (55%) 22 (58%) 0.637
Mean age ± SD y 54.61 ± 8.871 52.64 ± 8.570 51.53 ± 7.062 0.168
Body surface area (m2) 1.60 ± 0.11 1.59 ± 0.12 1.56 ± 0.12 0.228
Diagnoses     0.637
 MS 28 32 12
 MI 20 30 18
 MS + MI 14 18 8
Heart function (NYHA)     0.779
 II 10 18 6
 III 40 46 24
 IV 12 16 8
LVEDD (mm) 54.68 ± 6.83 55.58 ± 8.57 56.42 ± 5.88 0.404
LVESD (mm) 45.39 ± 3.91 45.79 ± 7.30 47.21 ± 5.53 0.214
LVEF (%) 56.66 ± 5.05 56.93 ± 4.27 57.45 ± 4.09 0.700
  1. LVEDD left ventricular end-diastolic dimension, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, LVESD left ventricular end-systolic dimension, NYHA New York Heart Association, MI mitral valve insufficiency, MS mitral valve stenosis, MS+ MI mitral valve stenosis and mitral valve insufficiency