Why the study?
Do elevated Cornell voltage and Cornell product predict cardiovascular and stroke mortality and morbidity in the general Japanese population?
Do elevated Cornell voltage and Cornell product predict cardiovascular and stroke mortality and morbidity in the general Japanese population?
Cardiovascular and stroke risks are elevated at lower levels of Cornell voltage and Cornell product in the Japanese population compared to Western diagnostic criteria, particularly in females.
May indicate lower Cornell voltage thresholds for mortality risk in Japanese adults; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: ECG-diagnosed left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), the Cornell voltage (CV: ≥2.8mV in males and ≥2.0mV in females) or Cornell product (CP: ≥244.0mV×ms), were selected in Western countries for their ability to diagnose anatomical LVH. METHODS AND RESULTS: We aimed to elucidate the CV and CP values that were associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular or stroke mortality and morbidity in a Japanese general population (n=10,172). In the receiver-operating curves analysis of CV and CP for predicting the risks, the area under the curve in females was greater than in males. In a quintile-based multivariate analysis that was performed separately for females and males, the mortality and morbidity risks of CV were significantly increased at the highest quintile of CV (>1.71mV) in females. In males, the mortality risk was significantly increased at the highest quintile of CV (>2.04mV). Additionally, in the parallel analysis of CP that included both males and females, the morbidity risk was significantly elevated in subjects with CP belonging to the 4th (158.7-193.4mV×ms; hazard ratio=1.387) or 5th quintiles (≥193.5mV×ms; hazard ratio=1.507), compared with those with CP values within the lowest quintile (<101.9mV×ms). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular and stroke risks may be elevated at lower levels of CV and CP in Japanese subjects, especially females.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishikawa et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: