Why the study?
Does a reference population-based LVMI criteria alter the detected prevalence of abnormal left ventricular geometry in patients with essential hypertension compared to classic criteria?
Does a reference population-based LVMI criteria alter the detected prevalence of abnormal left ventricular geometry in patients with essential hypertension compared to classic criteria?
Using a reference population-based LVMI criteria increases the detection of abnormal left ventricular geometry in hypertensive patients, potentially improving risk stratification.
Reference criteria may increase detected abnormal LV geometry in hypertension; leaves open effects on risk stratification.
PURPOSE: To evaluate 2 left ventricular mass index (LVMI) normality criteria for the prevalence of left ventricular geometric patterns in a hypertensive population ( HT ). METHODS: 544 essential hypertensive patients, were evaluated by echocardiography, and different left ventricular hypertrophy criteria were applied: 1 - classic : men - 134 g/m2 and women - 110 g/m2; 2- obtained from the 95th percentil of LVMI from a normotensive population (NT). RESULTS: The prevalence of 4 left ventricular geometric patterns, respectively for criteria 1 and 2, were: normal geometry - 47.7% and 39.3%; concentric remodelying - 25.4% and 14.3%; concentric hypertrophy - 18.4% and 27.7% and excentric hypertrophy - 8.8% and 16.7%, which confered abnormal geometry to 52.6% and 60.7% of hypertensive. The comparative analysis between NT and normal geometry hypertensive group according to criteria 1, detected significative stuctural differences,"( *p < 0.05):LVMI- 78.4 +/- 1.50 vs 85.9 +/-0.95 g/m2 *; posterior wall thickness -8.5 +/- 0.1 vs 8.9 +/- 0.05 mm*; left atrium - 33.3 +/- 0.41 vs 34.7 +/- 0.30 mm *. With criteria 2, significative structural differences between the 2 groups were not observed. CONCLUSION: The use of a reference population based criteria, increased the abnormal left ventricular geometry prevalence in hypertensive patients and seemed more appropriate for left ventricular hypertrophy detection and risk stratification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rosa et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: