## 3 Results
### Characteristics of Study Population
 } & Sytole & 0.65 (0.18) \(\blacktriangle\) & 1.21 (1.04) \(\blacktriangle\) & 0.85 (0.61) \(\bullet\) & 0.83 (0.40) & 0.006 \({}^{**}\) \\  & Diastole & 0.33 (0.19) \(\blacksquare\) & 0.55 (0.36) & 0.64 (0.66) \(\bullet\) & 0.58 (0.44) \(\blacksquare\) & 0.029 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{LV function} & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{LVESV (mL)} & 51 (41) \(\bullet\blacksquare\) & 67 (25) & 89 (62) \(\bullet\) & 87 (98) \(\blacksquare\) & 0.048 \({}^{*}\) \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{LVEDV (mL)} & 143 (78) \(\blacksquare\) & 148 (40) \(\square\) & 222 (96) \(\blacksquare\) & 237 (123) \(\blacksquare\) & 0.009 \({}^{**}\) \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{LVEDVI (mL/m\({}^{2}\))} & 80.34 (21) & 83.4 (29) \(\blacksquare\) & 116.9 (44) \(\blacksquare\) & 124.6 (67) \(\square\) & 0.020 \({}^{*}\) \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{LVM (g)} & - & 96 (28) \(\square\) & 123 (73) & 133.5 (38) \(\square\) & 0.024 \({}^{*}\) \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{LVMI (g/m\({}^{2}\))} & - & 48.2 (8) \(\square\) & 56.7 (33) & 69.7 (15) \(\square\) & 0.01 \({}^{**}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Notes: Normally distributed data are presented as median (IQR). \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05 \({}^{*}\); \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.01 \({}^{**}\); \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.001 \({}^{**}\); \(p\)-value \(<\) 0.001 \({}^{**}\) (-2 tailed). Controls were the reference of comparison, indicated by \(p\)-values. Controls vs. trivial–mild \(\blacktriangle\); controls vs. mild–moderate \(\bullet\); Controls vs. moderate–severe \(\blacksquare\); trivial–mild vs. moderate–severe \(\square\); mild–moderate vs. moderate–severe \(\square\). \(\cdot\cdot\cdot\cdot\) denotes the missing data in controls due to the retrospective collection form. The pairwise comparison was performed within the severity grades when the control data were missing. Abbreviations: SD = standard deviation; IQR = interquartile range; HDF = hemodynamic force; AVG = average; RMS = root mean square; S-L = septal–lateral; I-A = inter-anterior; B-A = base-apex; LV = left ventricle; LVESV = LV end–systolic volume; LVESVI = LVESV indexed; LVEDV = LV end-diastolic volume; LVEDVI = LVED indexed; LV = LV = LV = -mass; LVMI = LV indexed. LV Function. LVESV, LVEDV, LVEDVI, LVM, and LVMI exhibited significant differences among the study groups. All the parameters demonstrated a gradual increase as the MR severity increased. The LVESV (mL) demonstrated significant differences within the study group in an increasing trend from control to mild-moderate and moderate-severe  
Figure 3: The discernible differences between controls and across various MR severities. The post hoc tests showed further pairwise differences within mitral severities. (**A**) shows that as the severity increases, the systolic AVG HDF decreases compared to controls. Diastolic AVG did not show any significant difference (**B**). (**C**) demonstrates a sudden rise in overall AVG HDF in the B-A direction among the moderate–severe MR compared to controls. The systolic RMS in the I-A direction demonstrated a higher and the B-A direction demonstrated a lower mean value compared to controls (Panel (**D**)). The I-A direction showed a higher and the S-L direction showed a lower mean till trivial–mild MR and then showed an increased mean value towards severe MR (**E**). Both systolic and diastolic ratios were higher in MR patients than controls (**F**). Notes: _p_-value < 0.05 *, _p_-value < 0.01 **(**2**-tailed). Abbreviations: AVG = average; RMS = root mean square; HDF = hemodynamic force, B-A = base-apex, S-L = septal–lateral; I-A = inferior–anterior; MR = mitral regurgitation; A = average; S = systole; D = diastolic; C = controls; T-M = trivial–mild; M-M = mild–moderate; M-S = moderate–severe. MR (51 (41) vs. 67 (25) and 87 (98), \(p\)-value = 0.019 and 0.043, a 31.4% and 70.6% increase).