Relationship between HgbA1c and Myocardial Blood Flow Reserve in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Noninvasive Assessment Using Real-Time Myocardial Perfusion Echocardiography

Table 2

Comparison of quantitative myocardial perfusion parameters by segmental analysis.

	Group 1 (𝑛=107); (HgbA1c > 7.1%)	Group 2 (𝑛=165); (HgbA1c ≤ 7.1%)	𝑃^g (rank sum test, 2- tail 𝑃 value)
rBVrest	0.20 (0.15, 0.29)^a	0.28 (0.21, 0.34)^d	<0.001
rBVstress	0.28 (0.17, 0.38)	0.41 (0.30, 0.47)	<0.001
rBVreserve	1.39 (0.91, 1.78)	1.41 (1.08, 1.81)	0.51
𝛽rest	5.12 (3.60, 9.52)^b	6.16 (4.00, 8.92)^e	0.33
𝛽stress	4.51 (2.56, 18.46)	9.91 (3.91, 20.26)	0.004
𝛽reserve	1.38 (0.71, 1.84)	1.87 (0.98, 2.49)	<0.001
MBFrest	1.05 (0.52, 1.91)^c	1.62 (0.91, 2.57)^f	0.002
MBFstress	1.20 (0.51, 4.80)	3.08 (1.31, 7.93)	<0.001
MBFR	1.71 (0.74, 3.22)	2.41 (1.31, 4.05)	0.004

rBV: rest relative blood volume; β: myocardial blood flow velocity; MBF: absolute myocardial blood flow; MBFR: myocardial blood flow reserve. Data is presented as median (25% IQR, 75% IQR). ^a,b,cWilcoxon sign rank test for comparison between baseline and stress perfusion parameters (rBV, β, and MBF) in HgbA1c > 7.1% group, 𝑃<0.001. ^d,e,fWilcoxon sign rank test for comparison between baseline and stress perfusion parameters (rBV, β, and MBF) in HgbA1c ≤ 7.1% group, 𝑃<0.001. ^gWilcoxon rank sum test for comparison between HgbA1c > 7.1% group and HgbA1c ≤ 7.1% group.