CLINICAL STUDY: RISK FACTORS
Left ventricular mass and cardiovascular morbidity in essential hypertension: the MAVI study
Paolo Verdecchia, MD, FACC*,a,
Giancarlo Carini, MDa,
Antonio Circo, MDa,
Emilio Dovellini, MDa,
Ezio Giovannini, MDa,
Michele Lombardo, MDa,
Pasquale Solinas, MDa,
Marco Gorini, MDa,
Aldo Pietro Maggioni, MDa the MAVI Study Group
a ANMCO Research Center, Via La Marmora, 36 Firenze, Italy. Please see for MAVI Study Group participants
Manuscript received December 30, 2000;
revised manuscript received August 14, 2001,
accepted August 29, 2001.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Paolo Verdecchia, ANMCO Research Center, Via La Marmora, 39, 50121-Firenze, Italy
verdec{at}tin.it
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
OBJECTIVES
This study investigated the prognostic value of left ventricular (LV) mass at echocardiography in uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension.
BACKGROUND
Only a few single-center studies support the prognostic value of LV mass in uncomplicated hypertension.
METHODS
The MAssa Ventricolare sinistra nell’Ipertensione study was a multicenter (45 centers) prospective study. The prespecified aim was to explore the prognostic value of LV mass in hypertension. Admission criteria included essential hypertension, no previous cardiovascular events, and age  50. There was central reading of echocardiographic tracings. Treatment was tailored to the single subject.
RESULTS
Overall, 1,033 subjects (396 men) were followed for 0 to 4 years (median, 3 years). Mean age at entry was 60 years, and systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 154/92 mm Hg. The rate of cardiovascular events (x100 patient-years) was 1.3 in the group with normal LV mass and 3.2 in the group (28.5% of total sample) with LV mass 125 g/body surface area (p = 0.005). After adjustment for age (p < 0.01), diabetes (p < 0.01), cigarette smoking (p < 0.01) and serum creatinine (p = 0.03), LV hypertrophy was associated with an increased risk of events (RR [relative risk] 2.08; 95% CI [confidence interval]: 1.22 to 3.57). For each 39 g/m2 (1 SD) increase in LV mass there was an independent 40% rise in the risk of major cardiovascular events (95% CI: 14 to 72; p = 0.0013).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings show a strong, continuous and independent relationship of LV mass to subsequent cardiovascular morbidity. This is the first study to extend such demonstration to a large nationwide multicenter sample of uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension.
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | ANMCO | = Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri | | BP | = blood pressure | | BSA | = body surface area | | ECG | = electrocardiography | | LV | = left ventricular | | MAVI | = Massa Ventricolare Sinistra nell’Ipertensione | | MI | = myocardial infarction |
|
It is generally established that left ventricular (LV) mass determined at echocardiography is a powerful predictor of cardiovascular disease in apparently uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension (1,2). However, only two single-center studies explored the prognostic value of LV mass (3,4) in the specific setting of initially uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension. Evidence that serial changes in LV mass over time predict prognosis is also limited (5–7). The other outcome-based studies on the prognostic value of LV mass have been conducted in subjects with suspected coronary artery disease (8), previous myocardial infarction (MI) (9), renal failure (10,11), or in the general population (12,13). Hence, although a large body of evidence indicates the prognostic value of LV mass in different clinical settings, the specific applicability of these results to the clinical management of the vast majority of uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension remains poorly supported.
To explore the prognostic value of LV mass at echocardiography in the specific setting of uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension, we planned the MAssa Ventricolare sinistra nell’Ipertensione arteriosa (MAVI) study, a prospective, observational, multicenter investigation.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Design.
The MAVI study was a multicenter, prospective, observational study carried out in 58 hospital centers in Italy and endorsed by the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO, Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri). The protocol of MAVI had been published before the start of the study (14). The prespecified aim (14) was the assessment of the independent prognostic value of LV mass at echocardiography in subjects with essential hypertension. In brief, admission criteria to the MAVI study included clinic blood pressure (BP) in sitting position 140 mm Hg systolic or 90 mm Hg diastolic or current treatment for hypertension, no previous cardiovascular morbid events, age 50, and absence of valvular heart disease. Both genders have been included. Patients with cancer, other important diseases or serum creatinine 2.0 mg/dl were excluded. Patients under antihypertensive treatment were not required to withdraw their medications when they entered the study.
Clinical data were stored on a computer using an ad hoc software for hypertension laboratories provided by ANMCO and sent to the study headquarters in Florence. Prespecified primary outcome events included fatal and nonfatal MI, sudden cardiac death, fatal and nonfatal stroke, other cardiovascular deaths, all-cause death, severe heart failure requiring hospitalization and severe renal failure requiring dialysis. Secondary events included new-onset angina (typical chest pain symptoms plus objective evidence of ischemic changes at electrocardiography [ECG]), transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arteries occlusive disease verified at angiography.
Original source documents of patients who suffered an end-point event were collected by centers and sent to the study headquarters. Standard international criteria were used for definition of outcome events. Myocardial infarction was diagnosed on the basis of at least two of three standard criteria (typical chest pain, QRS changes at ECG, transient elevation of myocardial enzymes by more than twofold the upper normal laboratory limits). New-onset angina was defined by chest pain accompanied by typical ischemic changes on the ECG. Sudden death was defined as a witnessed death that occurred within an hour after the onset of acute symptoms, with no history that violence or accident played any role in the fatal outcome. Stroke was diagnosed on the basis of rapid onset of localizing and persistent neurological deficit in the absence of any other disease process explaining the symptoms. Transient ischemic attack was defined by the diagnosis, made by a physician, of any sudden focal neurological deficit that cleared completely in less than 24 h.
Electrocardiography.
The original ECG tracings were sent to a central laboratory for reading. The ECG reading was manual and was performed by one expert reader. Readers for echocardiographic and ECG tracings were different, did not work together and were not aware of the clinical characteristics of patients. The ECGs were recorded at 25 mm/s and 1 mV/cm calibration. Subjects with complete bundle branch block, previous MI, Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome and atrial fibrillation were excluded from analysis. The LV hypertrophy at ECG was diagnosed using the Perugia score (15,16), which requires positivity of at least one of the following three criteria: SV3 + RaVL >2.4 mV in men or >2.0 mV in women, a typical strain pattern, or a Romhilt-Estes point score 5.
Echocardiography.
A two-dimensional-targeted M-mode echocardiographic study was carried out at the beginning of the study in the context of a complete diagnostic workup including laboratory examinations, ECG and clinical examination. Working meetings among involved investigators were held periodically. Echocardiograms were recorded on tape and sent to a central laboratory for reading. Three expert readers examined the tracings, and the allocation of tapes to readers was randomized. All measurements were made on the screen using calipers. A long-axis parasternal approach was first examined to check perpendicularity of the ultrasonic beam with respect to the septum. Then, the short-axis approach was used to take LV diastolic and systolic measurements (the average of three consecutive cycles on the best single reading set was considered). The M-mode study was performed under 2D control using commercially available instruments. End-diastolic and end-systolic measurements were taken with the patient in partial left lateral decubitus according to the American Society of Echocardiography recommendations (17,18). Frames with optimal visualization of interfaces and showing simultaneous visualization of septum, LV internal diameter and posterior wall were used for reading. The LV mass was calculated using the following formula introduced by Devereux et al. (19) on the basis of necropsy validation studies:
 |
For definition of LV hypertrophy we considered an LV mass 125 g/body surface area (BSA) [m2], a partition point supported by ample prognostic evidence (3–7,17), and an LV mass >51.0 g/height [m2.7], in order to provide a more stringent allowance for obesity (20).
Statistical analysis.
On the basis of previous data (3,4), we predicted a prevalence of echocardiographic LV hypertrophy of 30% and a rate of events of 2 per 100 person-years in the absence versus 4 per 100 person-years in the presence of LV hypertrophy (14). On this basis, a sample size of 1,811 subjects with an average follow-up time of two years per patient was estimated to detect a significant difference between the groups (two-tailed test) with a type I error of 5% and a type II error of 10%. Survival curves were determined using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method (21) and compared by the Mantel (log-rank) test (22). The effect of prognostic factors on survival was evaluated by the stepwise Cox model (23). The tested variables were age (years), gender (men, women), systolic and diastolic BP at entry and after a median of three years of follow-up, evidence of coronary heart disease in the father at age <55 or in the mother at age <65 (yes, no), body mass index (weight[kg]/height[m2]), current cigarette smoking (yes, no), diabetes (yes, no), serum cholesterol (mg/dl), serum creatinine (mg/dl), LV mass (g/BSA[m2]) and antihypertensive treatment (no drugs; diuretics and beta-blockers alone or combined; different antihypertensive regimens). For the subjects who experienced multiple events, survival analysis was restricted to the first event. In two-sided tests, p values <0.05 were considered significant.
|
Results
|
|---|
Organization.
The MAVI study began in October 1995 in 58 hospital centers within Italy. Overall, 1,857 subjects were enrolled up to December 1998 and follow-up was concluded on December 31, 1999. Incomplete follow-up, predefined by follow-up information available in <50% of subjects, was reason for exclusion from the study for 13 centers and 197 subjects. The remaining 45 centers enrolled 1,660 subjects. Of these, 627 (38%) were rejected because of echocardiographic tracings of suboptimal technical quality on judgment of the reading center, thus leaving 1,033 subjects for the final analysis.
Baseline findings.
Table 1 shows some baseline characteristics of these subjects. Distribution of antihypertensive regimens at entry and on follow-up is shown in Figure 1. Distribution of the six stages of the Joint National Committee VI classification (optimal BP, normal BP, high-normal BP, stage I, stage II, stage III) (1) was 0.3%, 2.1%, 8.9%, 45.2%, 33.0% and 10.4%, respectively. Thirty-eight percent of the subjects did not show any concomitant traditional risk factors (1,2) in addition to hypertension, and the remaining 62% showed at least one risk factor. Diabetes was present in 7.3% of subjects, family history of premature coronary artery disease in 8.3%, cigarette smoking in 13.5%, body mass index >30 kg/height [m2] in 21.1%, a serum cholesterol >250 mg/dl or a total cholesterol/high density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio 6.0 in 28.1% of subjects.
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Distribution of antihypertensive regimens at entry and on follow-up. ACE = angiotension-converting enzyme.
|
|
Prevalence of LV hypertrophy at echocardiography was 28.5% using the cutoff of 125 g/BSA [m2], and 47.5% using 51.0 g/height [m2.7]. Prevalence of LV hypertrophy at ECG was 19.7%.
Follow-up.
After a median of three years of follow-up, average BP was 146/86 mm Hg (SD 15/8). Only 32.5% of subjects achieved adequate BP control (BP <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic). The distribution of antihypertensive regimens at entry and on follow-up is reported in Figure 1.
Cardiovascular events.
The subjects who developed a first cardiovascular event during follow-up numbered 83. Fifty-five of these were in the group (n = 1,033) who had good-quality echocardiographic tracings (Table 2). Thirty of the 55 cardiovascular events were primary events. Total event rate (per 100 person-years) did not differ between the subjects with suboptimal tracings and the other group (1.6 vs 1.8, respectively; p = 0.54 [log-rank test]). In the subset with good-quality echocardiographic tracings, event rate was 1.8 in the total population, 1.3 in the subset with normal LV mass (<125 g/BSA [m2]) and 3.2 in that with increased LV mass (log-rank test: p = 0.0005). Incidence of total cardiovascular events in the two groups is shown in Figure 2.
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Cumulative incidence (left) and crude rate (right) of cardiovascular (CV) events in the subjects with and without left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy at echocardiography. BSA = body surface area.
|
|
Overall, there were 4 subjects with sudden cardiac death, 9 with MI, 13 with stroke, 9 with transient ischemic attack, 3 with heart failure, 11 with new-onset unstable angina, 5 with arterial occlusive disease and 1 with severe progressive renal failure requiring dialysis.
Multivariate analysis
As shown in Table 3, after adjustment for the significant influence of age, cigarette smoking and diabetes, there was an independent 37% increase in the risk of primary events for any 39 g (1 SD) increase in LV mass (95% CI: 5 to 80; p = 0.020). Furthermore, after adjustment for age, cigarette smoking, serum creatinine concentration and diabetes, for any 39 g (1 SD) increase in LV mass there was a 40% rise in the risk of total cardiovascular events (95% CI: 14 to 73; p = 0.0013). None of the other variables yielded statistical significance, including LV hypertrophy at ECG. When LV mass entered the Cox analysis as a binary variable (below vs. above 125 g/m2), the risk associated with LV hypertrophy remained significant for total cardiovascular events (RR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.22 to 3.57; p = 0.007) and primary events (RR = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.92; p = 0.008). Systolic and diastolic BP at entry and on follow-up did not achieve significance.
There were only 13 fatal events and their rate (x100 person-years) was 0.23 in the subset with normal LV mass (<125 g/BSA [m2]) and 0.99 in that with increased LV mass (log-rank test: p = 0.007). The low number of fatal events precluded their multivariate assessment.
Left ventricular mass was also corrected by height2.7 to improve allowance for obesity. Event rate (x100 person-years) was 1.36 in the subset with LV mass  51.0 g/height2.7 (20), and 2.41 in that with greater LV mass (p = 0.034; log-rank test). When gender-adjusted cutoff values were used for definition of LV hypertrophy (104 g/m2 in women and 116 g/m2 in men) (24,25), prevalence of LV hypertrophy was 47.1% and event rate (x100 person-years) was 1.46 in the subset with normal LV mass and 2.45 in that with LV hypertrophy (log-rank test: p = 0.025). The list of independent predictors of outcome in the Cox analysis remained unchanged.
|
Discussion
|
|---|
The present study is the first to extend demonstration of the prognostic value of LV mass to a nationwide multicenter sample, the largest available so far, of uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension. Qualifying features of the present study were its prospective design, with prespecified definition of primary and total outcome events, and the central blind reading of ECG and echocardiographic tracings. These characteristics may have reduced the possibility of technical biases potentially inherent to single-center studies.
Previous studies.
In several observational studies, conducted in a variety of clinical conditions (3–13), the predictive power of LV mass remained significant after adjustment for the confounding effect of age, BP and other risk markers including diabetes, smoking, serum lipids and coronary lesions, whose number and prognostic impact differed across these studies. However, one could question to what extent the conclusions of these studies can be applied to the majority of subjects with uncomplicated essential hypertension. In fact, only a few of these studies have been specifically conducted in uncomplicated hypertensive subjects (3,4). Most studies have been done in quite different settings including subjects undergoing cardiac catheterization for presumed coronary artery disease (8), survivors of MI (9), subjects with renal failure (10,11) or in the general population (12,13).
It is out of the question that this large body of evidence strongly supports, in general, the prognostic value of LV mass. This, however, might lead to a partially unsupported feeling of scientific and clinical confidence in the use of LV mass for cardiovascular risk stratification in the specific setting of uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension, which could become a target for excessive extrapolation of conclusions not specifically obtained in these subjects.
The LV mass and prognosis.
In the present study, LV hypertrophy at echocardiography doubled the risk of both primary and total events, and for any increase in LV mass by 1 ± SD (39 g/m2) there was an independent 40% rise in the risk of events. The relation between LV mass and subsequent cardiovascular risk persisted after adjustment for the influence of several traditional risk factors, while other factors including baseline BP and antihypertensive treatment did not achieve significance. The overall event rate (1.8 x 100 patient-years) was somewhat lower than expected in the year 1995 when the study was designed (2.5 x 100 patient-years), but the absolute excess risk associated with LV hypertrophy remained virtually as expected (1.9 events vs. 2.0 events predicted). Also, the observed prevalence of LV hypertrophy (28.5%) was comparable to that expected (30.0%).
The apparently high prevalence of LV hypertrophy at ECG (19.7%) resulted from the use of the Perugia score (15,16), a diagnostic score that is positive in the presence of typical LV strain, a Romhilt-Estes score of 5 points or more, or Cornell voltage exceeding 2.0 mV in women or 2.4 mV in men (15,16). In a previous study (15), the combination of three specific criteria (Romhilt-Estes, LV strain and Cornell) in this score produced a rise in sensitivity to about 34% without excessive deterioration of specificity (93%), with a prevalence of LV hypertrophy at ECG of about 18%. A recent analysis of the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint (LIFE) study showed that accuracy of the Perugia score for diagnosis of LV hypertrophy is independent of overweight or obesity (26). In the present study, LV hypertrophy at ECG did not achieve significance as a predictor of cardiovascular risk after controlling for LV mass.
In addition to the expected concomitant effect of age, diabetes and cigarette smoking, our study showed an independent association between serum creatinine and subsequent risk of total cardiovascular events. Previous studies in hypertensive subjects showed an association between elevated creatinine levels and subsequent cardiovascular events (27–29). Also, high-normal levels of serum creatinine appear to be predictive of future cardiovascular events in subjects with essential hypertension (30). Because renal function was normal in all subjects at entry into the study, our data suggest that serum creatinine levels within the normal range may work as a marker of long-term exposure to high BP values, and therefore predict outcome also in nonrenal target organs.
Our epidemiological findings are unable to define the basic mechanisms underlying the prognostic value of LV mass in subjects with essential hypertension. The LV mass is generally considered a biological assay, which reflects and integrates the long-term cumulative level of activity of several risk factors for cardiovascular disease (31). Increased LV mass is a powerful predictor not only of ischemic cardiac events, an association partially expected by the unfavorable effects of LV hypertrophy on the balance between myocardial oxygen requirement and supply (32), but also of stroke (33).
Study limitations.
Because our study was conducted among white subjects, results may not be extended to different ethnic groups. Another limitation was the lack of assessment of the prognostic value of serial changes in BP and LV mass over time (5–7). The large percentage of subjects with inadequate echocardiographic tracings reflects the use of stringent criteria in the central reading process. Central reading of echocardiographic tracings in clinical trials frequently results in a large percentage of rejections due to suboptimal quality (34,35). In the Framingham Heart Study, 20.7% of echocardiographic tracings from men and 21.1% from women were rejected because of inadequate technical quality (13).
Conclusions.
Our study is the first to demonstrate a powerful association between LV mass determined at echocardiography and subsequent occurrence of cardiovascular disease in a nationwide representative multicenter sample of uncomplicated subjects with essential hypertension. These findings support the view that both prevention of LV hypertrophy development and regression of hypertrophy once established are key targets in the management of asymptomatic patients with essential hypertension.
|
Appendix
|
|---|
Steering Committee: E. Giovannini (chairman), G.C. Carini, A. Circo, E.V. Dovellini, M. Lombardo, P. Solinas, P. Verdecchia.
Scientific and Organizing Secretariat: S. Ghione, M. Gorini, D. Lucci, A.P. Maggioni.
Echocardiogram and ECG Central Reading: C. Borgioni, A. Ciucci, G. Gozzellino, A. Milletich.
Participating clinical centers: Avola (E. Mossuti, G. Canonico, G. Romano), Bari Policlinico (I. De Luca, N. Ciriello), Bazzano (A. Baldini, G. Castelli), Belluno (G. Catania, L. Tarantini), Bologna Osp. S. Orsola-M. Malpighi (E. Ambrosioni, F. Marchetta), Brindisi Osp. Di Summa (G. Ignone, D. Zuffianò, A. Storelli), Cagliari Osp. Binaghi (G. Isaia, E. Muscas), Camerino (R. Amici, B. Coderoni), Capua (E. Mercaldo, R. Esposito), Casale Monferrato (M. Ivaldi, G. Gozzelino, A. Capilli), Casarano (G. Pettinati, M. Ieva, A. Marzo), Caserta (G. Corsini, S. Romano, A. Martone), Catanzaro Policlinico (F. Perticone, C. Cosco), Chieti Villa Pini D’Abruzzo (C. Ciglia, P. Di Giovanni), Citta’ Della Pieve (G. Benemio, G. Schillaci, N. Sacchi), Cosenza INRCA (E. Feraco, A. M. Nicoletti), Desio (V. Baldini, M. Cristofari), Firenze Osp. Careggi (P. F. Fazzini, D. Antoniucci, E. V. Dovellini, E. Taddeucci), Firenze Osp. Camerata (F. Marchi, A. Buzzigoli), Foligno (M. Massi Benedetti, C. Pagnotta, R. Liberati), Gallarate (R. Canziani, G. Cozzi, M. Alberio), Gioia Del Colle (F. Barba), Gorizia (A. Fontanelli, R. Marini, L. Scarpino), Grottaglie (V. Portulano, G. Sportelli), Matera (L. Veglia, T. Scandiffio), Mesoraca (F. Schipani, C. Tangari), Messina Osp. Papardo (L. Cavallaro, G. Sergi, S. Mangano), Messina Policlinico Universitario (S. Coglitore, C. De Gregorio, D. Cento), Milano Osp. Niguarda (A. Pezzano, M. Lombardo), Monfalcone (T. Morgera, G. Zilio, D. Chersevani), Napoli Osp. Cardarelli (L. D’Aniello, F. D’Isanto), Oliveto Citra (G. D’angelo, V. Iuliano, P. Bottiglieri), Palermo Osp. Ingrassia (P. Di Pasquale, F. Clemenza, S. Cannizzaro, G. Caramanno), Perugia (C. Porcellati, P. Verdecchia, A. Ciucci, C. Borgioni), Pieve Di Cadore (J. Dalle Mule, M. Mazzella), Polistena (R. M. Polimeni, F. Catananti, F. Terranova), Pontedera (G. Squarcini, S. Giaconi), Pordenone (G. B. Cignacco, G. Zanata, D. Pavan), Potenza (A. Lopizzo, M. Chiaffitelli, M. Faruolo), Prato (A. Petrella, M. Paoletti), Roma CTO (M. Uguccioni, D. Mocini), Roma Osp. Forlanini (A. Majid Tamiz, A. Avallone), Roma Osp. San Camillo II Divisione (E. Giovannini, A. Chiantera, F. De Santis), Roma Osp. San Camillo Servizio (P. Tanzi, L. Boccardi, D. Colecchia), Rovigo (P. Zonzin, A. Bortolazzi, S. Aggio), San Giovanni Rotondo (R. Fanelli, A. Russo, A. De Vita), San Pietro Vernotico (L. Vergallo, S. Pede, A. Renna), Sarzana (G. Filorizzo, D. Bertoli, M. Corradeghini), Scorrano (E. De Lorenzi, A. Bergamo, A. Colizzi), Sesto San Giovanni (R. Melloni, E. Choicca), Sondalo (G. Occhi, G. Frisullo), Sondrio (S. Giustiniani, M. Marieni, M. L. Ghirimoldi), Soveria Mannelli (G. Bellieni, A. Marotta, A. Andricciola), Termoli (D. Staniscia, T. Alfieri), Udine (P. Fioretti, L. Pilotto), Vasto (G. Di Marco, G. Levantesi, L. Cavasinni), Viareggio (A. Pesola, G. Marracci, M. Pardini), Viterbo (R. Guerra, A. Achilli, S. De Spirito, R. Castellani).
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
This study was supported in part by Pfizer Italia, S.p.A.
|
References
|
|---|
1. Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2413–2446[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Guidelines Subcommittee. 1999 World Health Organization—International society of hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension. J Hypertens. 1999;17:151–183[Medline]
3. Koren MJ, Devereux RB, Casale PN, Savage DD, Laragh JH. Relation of left ventricular mass and geometry to morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated essential hypertension. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:345–352[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Verdecchia P, Porcellati C, Schillaci G, et al. Ambulatory blood pressure: an independent predictor of prognosis in essential hypertension. Hypertension. 1994;24:793–801[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Yurenev AP, Dyakonova HG, Novikov ID, Vitols A, Pahl L, Haynemann G. Management of essential hypertension in patients with different degrees of left ventricular hypertrophy: multicenter trial. Am J Hypertens. 1992;5:182S–189S[Medline]
6. Muiesan ML, Salvetti M, Rizzoni D, Castellano M, Donato F, Agabiti-Rosei E. Association of change in left ventricular mass with prognosis during long-term antihypertensive treatment. J Hypertens. 1995;13:1091–1095[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, et al. Prognostic significance of serial changes in left ventricular mass in essential hypertension. Circulation. 1998;97:48–54[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8. Liao Y, Cooper RS, McGee DL, Mensah GA, Ghali JK. The relative effects of left ventricular hypertrophy, coronary artery disease, and ventricular dysfunction on survival among black adults. JAMA. 1995;273:1592–1597[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Bolognese L, Dellavesa P, Rossi L, Sarasso G, Bongo AS, Scianaro MC. Prognostic value of left ventricular mass in uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction and one-vessel coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1994;73:1–5[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Silderberg JS, Barre PE, Prichard SS, Sniderman AD. Impact of left ventricular hypertrophy on survival in end-stage renal disease. Kidney Int. 1989;36:286–290[Medline]
11. Parfrey PS, Harnett JD, Griffiths SM, et al. The clinical course of left ventricular hypertrophy in dialysis patients. Nephron. 1990;55:114–120[Medline]
12. Levy D, Garrison RJ, Savage DD, Kannel WB, Castelli WP. Left ventricular mass and incidence of coronary heart disease in an elderly cohort. The Framingham study. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:101–107[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Levy D, Garrison RJ, Savage DD, Kannel WB, Castelli WP. Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham heart study. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:1561–1566[Abstract]
14. MAVI Study Group. Studio MAVI: studio della massa ventricolare sinistra nel soggetto iperteso. G Ital Cardiol. 1995;25:1231–1243[Medline]
15. Schillaci G, Verdecchia P, Borgioni C, et al. Improved electrocardiographic diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Cardiol. 1994;74:714–719[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, et al. Prognostic value of a new electrocardiographic method for diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy in essential hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:383–390[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Casale PN, Devereux RB, Milner M, et al. Value of echocardiographic measurement of left ventricular mass in predicting cardiovascular morbid events in hypertensive men. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:173–178[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Committee on M-mode Standardization of the American Society of EchocardiographySahn DJ, DeMaria A, Kisslo J, Weyman A. Recommendations regarding quantitation in M-mode echocardiography: results of a survey of echocardiographic measurements. Circulation. 1978;58:1072–1083[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Devereux RB, Alonso DR, Lutas EM, et al. Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy: comparison to necropsy findings. Am J Cardiol. 1986;57:450–458[CrossRef][Medline]
20. de Simone G, Daniels SR, Devereux RB, et al. Left ventricular mass and body size in normotensive children and adults: assessment of allometric relations and the impact of overweight. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20:1251–1260[Abstract]
21. Kaplan ER, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481[CrossRef]
22. Mantel N. Evaluation of survival data and two new rank-order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966;50:163–170[Medline]
23. Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc (B). 1972;34:187–220
24. Ghali JK, Liao Y, Simmons B, Castaner A, Cao G, Cooper RS. The prognostic role of left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with or without coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:831–836[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Devereux RB, Dahlof B, Levy D, Pfeffer MA. Comparison of enalapril versus nifedipine to decrease left ventricular hypertrophy in systemic hypertension (the PRESERVE trial). Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:61–65[Medline]
26. LIFE Study GroupOkin PM, Jern S, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Dahlöf B. Effect of obesity on electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint (LIFE) Reduction in Hypertension Study. Hypertension. 2000;35:13–18[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program Cooperative GroupShulman NB, Ford CE, Hall D, et al. Prognostic value of serum creatinine and effect of treatment of hypertension on renal function: results from the Hypertension Detection and Follow-up Program. Hypertension. 1989;13(Suppl I):I80–I93[Medline]
28. Froment A, Vincent P, Milon H, Barthelet M. Prognostic value of serum creatinine in treated hypertensives: a case-control study. [in French]Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss. 1988;81:165–169[Medline]
29. Gueyffier F, Boissel J-P, Pocock S, et al. Identification of risk factors in hypertensive patients: contribution of randomized controlled trials through an individual patient database. Circulation. 1999;100:e88–e94[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Schillaci G, Verdecchia P, Reboldi P. High-normal serum creatinine concentration is a predictor of cardiovascular risk in essential hypertension. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:886–891[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Devereux RB, Roman MJ. Hypertensive cardiac hypertrophy: pathophysiologic and clinical characteristics. Laragh JH, Brenner BM. Hypertension: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Management. 2nd ed. New York: Raven Press; 1995. p. 409–424
32. Houghton JL, Frank MJ, Carr AA, von Dohlen TW, Prisant LM. Relations among impaired coronary flow reserve, left ventricular hypertrophy and thallium perfusion defects in hypertensive patients without obstructive coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;15:43–51[Abstract]
33. Bikkina M, Levy D, Evans JC, et al. Left ventricular mass and risk of stroke in an elderly cohort. JAMA. 1994;272:33–36[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Gottdiener JS, Reda DJ, Massie BM, Materson BJ, Williams DW, Anderson RJ. Effect of single-drug therapy on reduction of left ventricular mass in mild to moderate hypertension: comparison of six antihypertensive agents. The Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Circulation. 1997;95:2007–2014[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. Gosse P, Sheridan DJ, Zannad F, et al. Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients treated with indapamide SR 1.5 mg versus enalapril 20 mg: the LIVE study. J Hypertens. 2000;18:1465–1475[CrossRef][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
A. Scuteri, R. Coluccia, L. Castello, E. Nevola, A. M. Brancati, and M. Volpe
Left ventricular mass increase is associated with cognitive decline and dementia in the elderly independently of blood pressure
Eur. Heart J.,
June 2, 2009;
30(12):
1525 - 1529.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Dieterle, S. Meili-Butz, K. Buhler, C. Morandi, D. John, P. T. Buser, J. Rivier, W. W. Vale, K. L. Peterson, and M. Brink
Immediate and Sustained Blood Pressure Lowering by Urocortin 2: A Novel Approach to Antihypertensive Therapy?
Hypertension,
April 1, 2009;
53(4):
739 - 744.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Hill and E. N. Olson
Cardiac Plasticity
N. Engl. J. Med.,
March 27, 2008;
358(13):
1370 - 1380.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Taniguchi, T. Takahashi, K. Toda, H. Matsue, Y. Shudo, H. Shintani, M. Mitsuno, and Y. Sawa
Left ventricular mass: impact on left ventricular contractile function and its reversibility in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.,
October 1, 2007;
32(4):
588 - 595.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. K. Mehta, J. E. Rame, A. Khera, S. A. Murphy, R. M. Canham, R. M. Peshock, J. A. de Lemos, and M. H. Drazner
Left Ventricular Hypertrophy, Subclinical Atherosclerosis, and Inflammation
Hypertension,
June 1, 2007;
49(6):
1385 - 1391.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Fielitz, S. Philipp, L. R. Herda, E. Schuch, B. Pilz, C. Schubert, V. Gunzler, R. Willenbrock, and V. Regitz-Zagrosek
Inhibition of prolyl 4-hydroxylase prevents left ventricular remodelling in rats with thoracic aortic banding
Eur J Heart Fail,
April 1, 2007;
9(4):
336 - 342.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. F. Elias, L. M. Sullivan, P. K. Elias, R. B. D'Agostino Sr, P. A. Wolf, S. Seshadri, R. Au, E. J. Benjamin, and R. S. Vasan
Left Ventricular Mass, Blood Pressure, and Lowered Cognitive Performance in the Framingham Offspring
Hypertension,
March 1, 2007;
49(3):
439 - 445.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Heckbert, W. Post, G. D.N. Pearson, D. K. Arnett, A. S. Gomes, M. Jerosch-Herold, W. G. Hundley, J. A. Lima, and D. A. Bluemke
Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Relation to Left Ventricular Mass, Volume, and Systolic Function by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: The Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
December 5, 2006;
48(11):
2285 - 2292.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Schalla, C. B. Higgins, M. Chujo, and M. Saeed
Effect of Potassium-Channel Opener Therapy on Reperfused Infarction in Hypertrophied Hearts: Demonstration of Preconditioning by Using Functional and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics,
July 1, 2004;
9(3):
193 - 202.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. Schneider, A. U. Klingbeil, C. Delles, M. Ludwig, R. E. Kolloch, M. Krekler, K. O. Stumpe, and R. E. Schmieder
Effect of Irbesartan Versus Atenolol on Left Ventricular Mass and Voltage: Results of the CardioVascular Irbesartan Project
Hypertension,
July 1, 2004;
44(1):
61 - 66.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Pacifico and P. D. Henry
Ablation for atrial fibrillation: are cures really achieved?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
June 2, 2004;
43(11):
1940 - 1942.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Ogita, K. Node, Y. Liao, F. Ishikura, S. Beppu, H. Asanuma, S. Sanada, S. Takashima, T. Minamino, M. Hori, et al.
Raloxifene Prevents Cardiac Hypertrophy and Dysfunction in Pressure-Overloaded Mice
Hypertension,
February 1, 2004;
43(2):
237 - 242.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. G Friedrich, B. Dahlof, U. Sechtem, T. Unger, M. Knecht, R. Dietz, and TELMAR Investigators
Telmisartan Effectiveness on Left ventricular MAss Reduction (TELMAR) as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension -- a prospective, randomised, double-blind comparison of telmisartan with metoprolol over a period of six months -- rationale and study design
Journal of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System,
December 1, 2003;
4(4):
234 - 243.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. de Simone
Left Ventricular Geometry and Hypotension in End-Stage Renal Disease: A Mechanical Perspective
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol.,
October 1, 2003;
14(10):
2421 - 2427.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.D McGavigan, F.G Dunn, and N.E.R Goodfield
Secondary harmonic imaging overestimates left ventricular mass compared to fundamental echocardiography
Eur J Echocardiogr,
September 1, 2003;
4(3):
178 - 181.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Leoncini, F. Viazzi, D. Parodi, S. Vettoretti, E. Ratto, M. Ravera, C. Tomolillo, M. Del Sette, G. P. Bezante, G. Deferrari, et al.
Mild Renal Dysfunction and Subclinical Cardiovascular Damage in Primary Hypertension
Hypertension,
July 1, 2003;
42(1):
14 - 18.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y. Zhang, D. Carreras, and A. J. de Bold
Discoordinate re-expression of cardiac fetal genes in N{omega}-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) hypertension
Cardiovasc Res,
January 1, 2003;
57(1):
158 - 167.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. de Simone, P. Verdecchia, S. Pede, M. Gorini, and A. P. Maggioni
Prognosis of Inappropriate Left Ventricular Mass in Hypertension: The MAVI Study
Hypertension,
October 1, 2002;
40(4):
470 - 476.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods