Table 4

T1-mapping, myocardial strain and aortic function data corrected for covariates* for hypertensive subjects

Hypertensive subjects (n=88)
Normal indexed LVM (n=56)Elevated indexed LVM (n=32)
Normal LV (n=41)Concentric remodelling (n=15)Concentric LVH (n=24)Eccentric LVH (n=8)
T1-mapping
 Native T1 (ms)1031±61025±101054±8*11067±15*2
 Extracellular volume fraction (%)27±126±129±1*330±1*4
Circumferential myocardial function
 Peak strain (%)−16.9±0.5−17.4±0.8−16.1±0.6−14.2±1.1*5
 Peak systolic strain rate (%/s)−104±4−120±7−99±5*6−76±10*7
 Peak diastolic strain rate (%/s)95±497±685±580±8
Aortic function
 Compliance (mm2/mm Hg)1.61±0.190.93±0.28*81.73±0.231.47±0.40
 Distensibility (mm2/mm Hg ×103)2.27±0.261.05±0.39*92.04±0.301.57±0.55
  • *Multiple linear regression accounting for the covariates of age, gender, body mass index, diabetes, office systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure and number of antihypertensive medications. Data are presented as mean±SE.

  • *1Concentric LVH versus normal LV: p=0.033 and concentric LVH versus concentric remodelling: p=0.028.

  • *2Eccentric LVH versus normal LV: p=0.031 and eccentric LVH versus concentric remodelling: p=0.018.

  • *3Concentric LVH versus normal LV: p=0.013 and concentric LVH versus concentric remodelling: p=0.001.

  • *4Eccentric LVH versus normal LV: p=0.022 and eccentric LVH versus concentric remodelling: p=0.001.

  • *5Eccentric LVH versus normal LV: p=0.047 and eccentric LVH versus concentric remodelling: p=0.024.

  • *6Concentric LVH versus concentric remodelling: p=0.025 and concentric LVH versus eccentric LVH: p=0.038.

  • *7Eccentric LVH versus normal LV: p=0.016 and eccentric LVH versus concentric remodelling: p=0.002.

  • *8Concentric remodelling versus concentric LVH: p=0.028.

  • *9Concentric remodelling versus normal LV: p=0.020 and concentric remodelling versus concentric LVH: p=0.048.

  • LV, left ventricular; LVH, left ventricular hypertrophy; LVM, left ventricular mass.