Why the study?
Comparisons between different body size indices and left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive populations had not been reported yet.
Are higher anthropometric indicators of obesity associated with an increased risk of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients?
Are higher anthropometric indicators of obesity associated with an increased risk of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Anthropometric indicators of obesity, particularly BMI and waist-to-height ratio, are significantly associated with left ventricular hypertrophy in Chinese hypertensive patients.
Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has been classified separately as an independent risk factor for hypertension. However, comparisons between different body size indices and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in hypertensive populations have not been reported yet. In this study, we enrolled 4,639 hypertensive patients from rural China. Anthropometric indices and cardiovascular disease risk factor variables were measured and analyzed using Spearman's correlation, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. Patients in the highest quartile of body size indices were more likely to have left ventricular hypertrophy than those in the lowest quartile; these indices were BMI (adjusted OR: 3.55, 95% CI: 2.90; 4.35), WC (adjusted OR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.84; 2.70), WHR (adjusted OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.18; 1.75), and WHtR (adjusted OR: 3.23, 95% CI: 2.62; 3.99). The areas under the ROC curves of BMI (AUC: 0.628, 95% CI: 0.612; 0.644), WHtR (AUC: 0.628, 95% CI: 0.560; 0.593), WHR (AUC: 0.530, 95% CI: 0.513; 0.547), and WC (AUC: 0.576, 95% CI: 0.513; 0.547) were all above 0.5, which indicated that the four anthropometric indicators may be associated with LVH. The four anthropometric indicators of obesity were identified as risk factors for LVH. Weight control might help reduce the risk of left ventricular hypertrophy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cheng et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: