Does left ventricular geometry provide incremental prognostic value beyond cardiovascular disease risk factors and left ventricular mass in subjects without cardiovascular disease?
In subjects without cardiovascular disease, left ventricular geometry provides little prognostic information beyond that available from left ventricular mass and traditional risk factors.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the incremental prognostic value of left ventricular geometric patterns beyond that provided by cardiovascular disease risk factors, including left ventricular mass. BACKGROUND: Left ventricular geometry may be classified into the following four mutually exclusive groups on the basis of left ventricular mass and relative wall thickness: concentric hypertrophy (increased mass and increased relative wall thickness), eccentric hypertrophy (increased mass and normal relative wall thickness), concentric remodeling (normal mass and increased relative wall thickness) and normal geometry (normal mass and normal relative wall thickness). The prognosis associated with these patterns in a population-based sample is not known. METHODS: Proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the prognostic importance of left ventricular geometry in 3,216 subjects in the Framingham Heart Study who were > or = 40 years old and free of clinically apparent cardiovascular disease, after adjustment for traditional cardiovascular risk factors and left ventricular mass. The follow-up period was 8 years. RESULTS: Subjects with concentric hypertrophy had the worst prognosis, followed by those with eccentric hypertrophy, concentric remodeling and normal geometry. Subjects with concentric hypertrophy also had the highest left ventricular mass. The association between type of geometry and prognosis was largely attenuated by adjustment for baseline differences in left ventricular mass. The odds ratio for incident cardiovascular disease in subjects with concentric hypertrophy compared with those who had normal geometry was 1.3 (95% confidence interval CI 0.8 to 2.1) in men and 1.2 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.3) in women after adjustment for other cardiovascular risk factors, including left ventricular mass. CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based sample of subjects without cardiovascular disease, knowledge of left ventricular geometry provided little prognostic information beyond that available from left ventricular mass and traditional cardiovascular risk factors.
Krumholz et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: