## 3 Results
### Characteristics of Study Population
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Controls (n = 15)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MR Patients (n = 26)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\)**-Value**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{Baseline characteristics} \\ \hline Sex & F = 7 (47\%), M = 8 (53\%) & F = 12 (46\%), M = 14 (54\%) & \\ Age (years) & 33 (20) & 61.50 (15) & \textless{}0.001 *** \\ HR (beats/minute) & 68.48 \(\pm\) 11.53 & 67.85 \(\pm\) 13.85 & 0.88 \\ SBP (mmHg) & 108.20 \(\pm\) 11.90 & 116.54 \(\pm\) 15.51 & 0.06 \\ DBP (mmHg) & 61.22 \(\pm\) 10.45 & 69.04 \(\pm\) 11.07 & 0.03 * \\ BSA (m\({}^{2}\)) & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 1.92 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 0.53 \\ \hline LV function & & & \\ \hline LVEDV (mL) & 143 (78) & 168 (94) & 0.032 * \\ LVESV (mL) & 51 (41) & 68.50 (48) & 0.037 * \\ LVM (g) & - & 115 (49) & - \\ LVEDVI (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 80 (21) & 87.80 (43) & 0.025 * \\ LVESVI (mL/m\({}^{2}\)) & 27.84 (14) & 36.65 (21) & 0.045 * \\ LVMI (g/m\({}^{2}\)) & - & 56.65 (22) & - \\ LVEF (\%) & 59.20 (7.8) & 57.95 (8.5) & 0.449 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Notes: Parametric data is presented as mean \(\pm\) SD. Non-parametric data are presented as median (IQR). \(p\)-value < 0.001 ***, \(p\)-value < 0.05 * (2-tailed). ’-’ denotes the missing data in controls due to the retrospective collection form. Abbreviations: F = female; M = male; MR = mitral regurgitation; SD = standard deviation; IQR = interquartile range; HR = heart rate; SBP = systolic blood pressure; DBP = diastolic blood pressure; BSA = body surface area; LVEDV = left ventricle end-diastolic volume; LVEDVI = LVEDV indexed; LVESV = left ventricle end-systolic volume; LVESVI = LVESV indexed; LVM = left ventricle mass; LVMI = LVM indexed; LVEF = LV ejection fraction.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Overview of the study population’s baseline characteristics and cardiac function. Figure 2: The differences in HDF between controls and MR patients with preserved EF. Panel (**A1**) shows the significant differences in the systolic AVG HDF and panel (**C1**) shows the significant differences in the overall average HDF in the S-L and B-A directions. MR patients demonstrated a reduction in the mean values compared to controls (systolic AVG S-L: 40%1, systolic AVG B-A: 46.9%1, overall AVG S-L: 24%1, and overall AVG B-A: 26%1, respectively). (**A2**) shows insignificant differences in the diastolic AVG HDF between controls and MR patients. Panel (**B1**) illustrates the differences in systolic RMS HDF in I-A and B-A direction. (**B2**) shows the difference in diastolic RMS HDF in the I-A direction. The RMS HDF in the I-A direction demonstrated a higher mean (systolic: 35.3%1, diastolic: 56.3%1) and the B-A direction demonstrated a lower mean in patients than controls (32.1%1). Panel (**C2**) demonstrates the differences in systolic and diastolic ratios where the patients had a higher mean value than controls (32.3%1 and 72.7%1, respectively). Notes: \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05 *, \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.01 **, \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.001 ***. Abbreviations: MR = mitral regurgitation; AVG = average; RMS = root mean square; HDF = hemodynamic force; S-L = septal–lateral; I-A = inferior–anterior; B-A = basal–apical. In the comparative analysis, distinct patterns emerged across various parameters, shedding light on the differences in cardiac dynamics. The systolic AVG HDF in the S-L and B-A directions was significantly diminished in MR patients (0.55 (0.22) vs. 0.33 (0.33) mN/mL and 0.49 (0.26) vs. 0.26 (0.25) mN/mL, \(p\)-value = 0.007 and 0.001, 40%\({}^{\ddagger}\) and 46.9%\({}^{\ddagger}\), respectively). The RMS HDF during systole and diastole provided valuable insights. In the systolic phase, RMS I-A exhibited a significant increase in MR patients compared to controls (0.34 \(\pm\) 0.12 vs. 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.19 mN/mL, \(p\)-value = 0.023, 35.3%\({}^{\ddagger}\)). Conversely, RMS Systole B-A decreased in MR patients compared to controls (1.37 (0.30) vs. 0.94 (0.66) mN/mL, \(p\)-value = 0.001, 32.1%\({}^{\ddagger}\)).