Limits...
Ischemic postconditioning diminishes intramyocardial hemorrhage in acute reperfused myocardial infarction in rats, evaluated by CMR at 7T

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Intromyocardial hemorrhage in control group and IPOC group.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4328932&req=5

Figure 1: Intromyocardial hemorrhage in control group and IPOC group.

Mentions: Sixteen rats left (Control=9; IPOC=7) for three rats were died during operation and one was excluded for image artifacts. Intramyocardial hemorrhage size was significantly larger in control group compared with IPOC group(9.3±2.6% vs. 2.4±0.3%, P = 0.00).There was no significant difference was observed in infarct size (46.7±13.1% vs. 37.7±12.1%, P =NS), area at risk (65±11.8% vs. 51.4±13.2%, P = NS) and EF(57.7±12.4% vs. 57.6±13.5%, P = NS). Figure 1


Ischemic postconditioning diminishes intramyocardial hemorrhage in acute reperfused myocardial infarction in rats, evaluated by CMR at 7T
Intromyocardial hemorrhage in control group and IPOC group.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4328932&req=5

Figure 1: Intromyocardial hemorrhage in control group and IPOC group.
Mentions: Sixteen rats left (Control=9; IPOC=7) for three rats were died during operation and one was excluded for image artifacts. Intramyocardial hemorrhage size was significantly larger in control group compared with IPOC group(9.3±2.6% vs. 2.4±0.3%, P = 0.00).There was no significant difference was observed in infarct size (46.7±13.1% vs. 37.7±12.1%, P =NS), area at risk (65±11.8% vs. 51.4±13.2%, P = NS) and EF(57.7±12.4% vs. 57.6±13.5%, P = NS). Figure 1

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus