Table 1 Comparison of perioperative patient characteristics by groups Left ventricular architecture after valve replacement due to critical aortic stenosis: an approach to dis-/qualify the myth of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch?☆ Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;19(6):797-805. doi:10.1016/S1010-7940(01)00683-2 Eur J Cardiothorac Surg | © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Elsevier Science B.V.
Table 2 Comparison of primary (I) and secondary (II) endpoint variables by groups<sup>a</sup> Left ventricular architecture after valve replacement due to critical aortic stenosis: an approach to dis-/qualify the myth of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch?☆ Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;19(6):797-805. doi:10.1016/S1010-7940(01)00683-2 Eur J Cardiothorac Surg | © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Elsevier Science B.V.
Fig. 1 LVMM<sub>index</sub>, left ventricular myocardial mass index; P<sub>T</sub>, P value for the factor time; P<sub>T+G</sub>, P value for interaction of the factors time and group. Left ventricular architecture after valve replacement due to critical aortic stenosis: an approach to dis-/qualify the myth of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch?☆ Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;19(6):797-805. doi:10.1016/S1010-7940(01)00683-2 Eur J Cardiothorac Surg | © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Elsevier Science B.V.
Fig. 2 WT<sub>sys1</sub>, systolic wall thickness at position 1 (anterior, superior); WT<sub>sys2</sub>, systolic wall thickness at position 2 (anterior, median); WT<sub>sys3</sub>, systolic wall thickness at position 3 (anterior, inferior); WT<sub>sys4</sub>, systolic wall thickness at position 4 (apical); WT<sub>sys5</sub>, systolic wall thickness at position 5 (posterior, inferior); WT<sub>sys6</sub>, systolic wall thickness at position 6 (posterior); WT<sub>sys7</sub>, systolic wall thickness at position 7 (posterior and posterolateral). (Solid line), control T<sub>0</sub>; (semi-interrupted line), control T<sub>1</sub>; (interrupted line), control T<sub>2</sub>. Left ventricular architecture after valve replacement due to critical aortic stenosis: an approach to dis-/qualify the myth of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch?☆ Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;19(6):797-805. doi:10.1016/S1010-7940(01)00683-2 Eur J Cardiothorac Surg | © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Elsevier Science B.V.
Fig. 3 WT<sub>dias1</sub>, diastolic wall thickness at position 1 (anterior, superior); WT<sub>dias2</sub>, diastolic wall thickness at position 2 (anterior, median); WT<sub>dias3</sub>, diastolic wall thickness at position 3 (anterior, inferior); WT<sub>dias4</sub>, diastolic wall thickness at position 4 (apical); WT<sub>dias5</sub>, diastolic wall thickness at position 5 (posterior, inferior and diaphragmal); WT<sub>dias6</sub>, diastolic wall thickness at position 6 (posterior); WT<sub>dias7</sub>, diastolic wall thickness at position 7 (posterior and posterolateral). (Solid line), control T<sub>0</sub>; (semi-interrupted line), control T<sub>1</sub>; (interrupted line), control T<sub>2</sub>. Left ventricular architecture after valve replacement due to critical aortic stenosis: an approach to dis-/qualify the myth of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch?☆ Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;19(6):797-805. doi:10.1016/S1010-7940(01)00683-2 Eur J Cardiothorac Surg | © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Elsevier Science B.V.
Table 3 Logistic regression report Left ventricular architecture after valve replacement due to critical aortic stenosis: an approach to dis-/qualify the myth of valve prosthesis–patient mismatch?☆ Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;19(6):797-805. doi:10.1016/S1010-7940(01)00683-2 Eur J Cardiothorac Surg | © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Elsevier Science B.V.