Electromechanical Substrate Characterization in ARVC | 69 compliance was lower in the basal segment compared to the apical segment (Figure 3). Average RVfw compliance was not significantly different between the groups (control:500±325 %/kPa; subclinical: 551±561 %/kPa ;electrical: 1002±723 %/kPa; structural: 742±595 %/kPa, p=0.094). Figure 3. Estimated Tissue Properties In the top row, RV regional estimations of contractility, compliance, and activation delay are shown relative to the mean value. In the bottom row, the standard deviation of these three properties is shown in a boxplot, characterized by 2010 TFC (subclinical, electrical, structural), strain morphology (Type-I, Type-II, and Type-III), and RV mechanical dispersion (RVMD). * indicates a significant difference with p<0.05 Activation delay No significant difference was found in heterogeneity of regional RVfw activation delay (control: 10±11ms; subclinical: 8.9±10.1ms; electrical: 21±30ms; structural:18±22ms, p=0.267). However, the electrical and structural stage groups contained more individuals with a relatively late activated basal segment than the subclinical stage and control groups. Basal deformation patterns The simulations revealed that heterogeneity in RVfw contractility was increased in compared to the Type-I and control groups (control: 9.98±4.27%; Type-I: 6.52±5.20%; Type-II: 12.19±11.25%; Type-III: 21.81±14.09%, p<0.001). Also, the heterogeneity in compliance was increased in the groups with Type-II and Type-III RV basal deformation patterns compared to the Type-I and control groups (control: 9.16±4.84%; Type-I: 9.43± 5.78%; Type-II: 13.00±8.46%; TypeIII: 20.63±11.74%, p<0.001). No significant difference was found in activation delay (control: 10.0±11.1ms; Type-I: 8.4±6.3ms; Type-II:16.6±25.5ms; Type-III: 21.3±24.7ms, p=0.472). 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw