Table 1 Summary of statistical data analysis.

From: Short-Long Heart Rate Variation Increases Dispersion of Action Potential Duration in Long QT Type 2 Transgenic Rabbit Model

 

LMC

LQT1

LQT2

Max σAPD

(Figs 1–3)

Fig. 1.

Under Random Stimulation:

σAPD = 5.55 ms

ΔAPDmax-min = 23.4 ms

Under S1S1 Stimulation:

CL = 210 ms

σAPD = 3.75 ms

ΔAPDmax-min = 15.2 ms

Fig. 2.

Under Random Stimulation:

σAPD = 3.91 ms

ΔAPDmax-min = 12.2 ms

Under S1S1 Stimulation: CL = 240 ms

σAPD = 2.62 ms

ΔAPDmax-min = 12.2 ms

Fig. 3.

Under Random Stimulation:

σAPD = 10.9 ms

ΔAPDmax-min = 38.0 ms

Under S1S1 Stimulation:

CL = 270 ms

σAPD = 7.2 ms

ΔAPDmax-min = 26.0 ms

Beat-to-beat APD variation

(standard deviation of APD during random stimulation,σbeat-to-beat)

(Figs 1–3)

5.8 ± 1.2 ms

n = 5 hearts in Fig. 1

3.2 ± 0.9 ms

n = 5 hearts in Fig. 2

8.8 ± 2.0 ms

n = 5 hearts in Figs 1–3

LMC vs. LQT2, p < 0.05

LQT1 vs. LQT2, p < 0.05

(Student’s t-test respectively)

ΔCL = CLn−1 – CLn−2

at maximum APD dispersion

(paired t-test between CLn−1 and CLn−2)

(Fig. 4A)

5.3 ± 17.7 ms

p = 0.2084

n = 5 hearts, 10 scans

5.0 ± 18.6 ms

p = 0.2084

n = 5 hearts, 10 scans

17.7 ± 14.1 ms

CLn−1 > CLn−2, p < 0.01

n = 5 hearts, 10 scans

Correlation of

σAPD vs. ΔCL

under random stimulation

(Fig. 4B)

0.008 ± 0.002

r = 0.23 ± 0.14

n = 4 hearts

LMC vs. LQT1, p < 0.05

0.002 ± 0.004

r = 0.10 ± 0.16

n = 4 hearts

0.022 ± 0.008

r = 0.51 ± 0.17

n = 4 hearts

LMC vs. LQT2, p < 0.05

LQT1 vs. LQT2, p < 0.05

(Student’s t-test respectively)

Correlation between

ΔCL and σAPD

under S1S2S3 stimulation

(Fig. 4C)

r = 0.68 ± 0.09

p < 0.05

n = 4 hearts

N/A

r = 0.79 ± 0.14

p < 0.01

n = 4 hearts

Slope of σAPD vs. ΔCL

under S1S2S3 stimulation

(Fig. 4C)

0.005 ± 0.001

n = 4 hearts

N/A

0.035 ± 0.020

LMC vs. LQT2, p < 0.01

n = 4 hearts

(Student’s t-test)

Coefficient α1

under random stimulation

in Fig. 5C

(Statistical differences were found by one-way ANOVA test at p = 0.05 level)

0.23 ± 0.06

n = 6 hearts

0.17 ± 0.02

n = 6 hearts

LMC vs LQT1, p = 0.029

(Student’s t-test)

0.32 ± 0.06

n = 6 hearts

LMC vs LQT2, p = 0.039

LQT1 vs LQT2, p < 0.00003

(Student’s t-test respectively)

Coefficient α2

under random stimulation

in Fig. 5C

(Statistical differences were found by one-way ANOVA test at p = 0.05 level)

−0.068 ± 0.04505

n = 6 hearts

0.007 ± 0.051

n = 6 hearts

LMC vs LQT1, p = 0.023

(Student’s t-test)

−0.053 ± 0.021

n = 6 hearts

LQT1 vs LQT2, p = 0.025

LMC vs LQT2, p = 0.461

(Student’s t-test)

Standard deviation of

restitution slope map

under random stimulation

in Fig. 5D

0.030 ± 0.014

n = 4 hearts

0.029 ± 0.008

n = 4 hearts

0. 064 ± 0.025

n = 4 hearts

LMC vs. LQT2, p < 0.05

(Student’s t-test)

Correlation

between α1 and α2

in Fig. 5E

−0.07 ± 0.15

n = 6 hearts

N/A

−0.27 ± 0.10

n = 6 hearts

Back to article page