Impact of Different Partition Values on Prevalences of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Concentric Geometry in a Large Hypertensive Population
- 1 January 2000
- journal article
- other
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Hypertension
- Vol. 35 (1) , 6-12
- https://doi.org/10.1161/01.hyp.35.1.6
Abstract
—Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and concentric remodeling have been defined by using a variety of indexation methods and partition values (PVs) for LV mass and relative wall thickness (RWT). The effects of these methods on the distribution of LV geometric patterns in hypertensive subjects remain unclear. Echocardiograms were obtained in 941 patients with stage I to III hypertension and LV hypertrophy by ECG. LV mass was calculated by using different methods of indexation for body size and different PVs to identify hypertrophy: LV mass/body surface area (g/m 2 ) PV for men/women 116/104, 125/110, or 125/125; LV mass/height (g/m) PV 143/102 or 126/105; and LV mass/height 2.7 (g/m 2.7 ) PV 51/51 or 49.2/46.7. RWT was calculated by either 2×end-diastolic posterior wall thickness (PWT)/end-diastolic LV internal dimension (LVID) or end-diastolic interventricular septum dimension+end-diastolic PWT/end-diastolic LVID. LV hypertrophy or remodeling was present in 63% to 86% of subjects, and LV hypertrophy was present in 42% to 77%. By any index, eccentric hypertrophy was the common LV geometric pattern. Use of interventricular septum dimension+PWT/LVID to calculate RWT slightly increased the prevalence of normal geometry and eccentric hypertrophy compared with the use of 2×PWT/LVID. Subjects with LV hypertrophy identified by only LV mass/height 2.7 PV 49.2/46.7 were more obese, whereas those identified by only LV mass/body surface area PV 116/104 were taller and thinner than those in the 2 concordant groups with or without LV hypertrophy by both criteria. By either criterion, there were no significant differences between different LV geometric patterns in clinical cardiovascular disease. Hypertensive patients with LV hypertrophy by ECG have a high prevalence of geometric abnormalities, especially eccentric hypertrophy, irrespective of method of indexation or PV. LV mass indexation by body surface area or height 2.7 identifies lean and obese subjects, respectively. We found no difference in prevalent cardiovascular disease in subjects identified by either criterion, suggesting a similar high risk.Keywords
This publication has 44 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prognostic value of left ventricular mass and geometry in systemic hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophyThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1996
- Comparison of enalapril versus nifedipine to decrease left ventricular hypertrophy in systemic hypertension (the PRESERVE trial)The American Journal of Cardiology, 1996
- Impact of echocardiographic left ventricular mass on mechanistic implications of exercise testing parametersThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1995
- Indexing left ventricular mass to account for differences in body size in children and adolescents without cardiovascular diseaseThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1995
- Relation of obesity and gender to left ventricular hypertrophy in normotensive and hypertensive adults.Hypertension, 1994
- Asymmetric left ventricular remodeling due to isolated septal thickening in patients with systemic hypertension and normal left ventricular massesThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1994
- Prognostic Implications of Echocardiographically Determined Left Ventricular Mass in the Framingham Heart StudyNew England Journal of Medicine, 1990
- Impact of age on echocardiographic left ventricular mass in a healthy population (the Framingham study)The American Journal of Cardiology, 1989
- Reliable estimation of peak left ventricular systolic pressure by M-mode echographic-determined end-diastolic relative wall thickness: Identification of severe valvular aortic stenosis in adult patientsAmerican Heart Journal, 1982
- M mode echocardiography in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Diagnostic criteria and prediction of obstructionThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1980