AIMS: Left atrial (LA) structural and functional abnormalities may be subclinical phenotypes, which identify individuals at increased risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Maximum LA volume (LAmax) and LA emptying fraction (LAEF) were measured via cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in 1802 participants in the Dallas Heart Study. The associations of LAEF and LAmax indexed to body surface area (LAmax/BSA) with traditional risk factors, natriuretic peptide levels, and left ventricular (LV) structure [end-diastolic volume (EDV) and concentricity(0.67) (mass/EDV(0.67))] and function (ejection fraction) were assessed using linear regression analysis. The incremental prognostic value of LAmax/BSA and LAEF beyond traditional risk factors, LV ejection fraction, and LV mass was assessed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Both increasing LAmax/BSA and decreasing LAEF were associated with hypertension and natriuretic peptide levels (P < 0.05 for all). In multivariable analysis, LAmax/BSA was most strongly associated with LV end-diastolic volume/BSA, while LAEF was strongly associated with LV ejection fraction and concentricity(0.67). During a median follow-up period of 8.1 years, there were 81 total deaths. Decreasing LAEF [hazard ratio (HR) per 1 standard deviation (SD) (8.0%): 1.56 (1.32-1.87)] but not increasing LAmax/BSA [HR per 1 SD (8.6 mL/m(2)): 1.14 (0.97-1.34)] was independently associated with mortality. Furthermore, the addition of LAEF to a model adjusting Framingham risk score, diabetes, race, LV mass, and ejection fraction improved the c-statistic (c-statistics: 0.78 vs. 0.77; P < 0.05, respectively), whereas the addition of LAmax/BSA did not (c-statistics: 0.76, P = 0.20). CONCLUSION: In the general population, both LAmax/BSA and LAEF are important subclinical phenotypes but LAEF is superior and incremental to LAmax/BSA.
AIMS: Left atrial (LA) structural and functional abnormalities may be subclinical phenotypes, which identify individuals at increased risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Maximum LA volume (LAmax) and LA emptying fraction (LAEF) were measured via cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in 1802 participants in the Dallas Heart Study. The associations of LAEF and LAmax indexed to body surface area (LAmax/BSA) with traditional risk factors, natriuretic peptide levels, and left ventricular (LV) structure [end-diastolic volume (EDV) and concentricity(0.67) (mass/EDV(0.67))] and function (ejection fraction) were assessed using linear regression analysis. The incremental prognostic value of LAmax/BSA and LAEF beyond traditional risk factors, LV ejection fraction, and LV mass was assessed using the Cox proportional-hazards model. Both increasing LAmax/BSA and decreasing LAEF were associated with hypertension and natriuretic peptide levels (P < 0.05 for all). In multivariable analysis, LAmax/BSA was most strongly associated with LV end-diastolic volume/BSA, while LAEF was strongly associated with LV ejection fraction and concentricity(0.67). During a median follow-up period of 8.1 years, there were 81 total deaths. Decreasing LAEF [hazard ratio (HR) per 1 standard deviation (SD) (8.0%): 1.56 (1.32-1.87)] but not increasing LAmax/BSA [HR per 1 SD (8.6 mL/m(2)): 1.14 (0.97-1.34)] was independently associated with mortality. Furthermore, the addition of LAEF to a model adjusting Framingham risk score, diabetes, race, LV mass, and ejection fraction improved the c-statistic (c-statistics: 0.78 vs. 0.77; P < 0.05, respectively), whereas the addition of LAmax/BSA did not (c-statistics: 0.76, P = 0.20). CONCLUSION: In the general population, both LAmax/BSA and LAEF are important subclinical phenotypes but LAEF is superior and incremental to LAmax/BSA.
Authors: Mark H Drazner; Daniel L Dries; Ronald M Peshock; Richard S Cooper; Chris Klassen; Farhana Kazi; DuWayne Willett; Ronald G Victor Journal: Hypertension Date: 2005-06-06 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Allison M Pritchett; Douglas W Mahoney; Steven J Jacobsen; Richard J Rodeheffer; Barry L Karon; Margaret M Redfield Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Christine C Welles; Ivy A Ku; Damon M Kwan; Mary A Whooley; Nelson B Schiller; Mintu P Turakhia Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Jane C Evans; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy; Elizabeth C LeRoy; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-08-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ronald G Victor; Robert W Haley; DuWayne L Willett; Ronald M Peshock; Patrice C Vaeth; David Leonard; Mujeeb Basit; Richard S Cooper; Vincent G Iannacchione; Wendy A Visscher; Jennifer M Staab; Helen H Hobbs Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2004-06-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Walter Oliver; Gwendolyn Matthews; Colby R Ayers; Sonia Garg; Sachin Gupta; Ian J Neeland; Mark H Drazner; Jarett D Berry; Susan Matulevicius; James A de Lemos Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Angela B S Santos; Gabriela Querejeta Roca; Brian Claggett; Nancy K Sweitzer; Sanjiv J Shah; Inder S Anand; James C Fang; Michael R Zile; Bertram Pitt; Scott D Solomon; Amil M Shah Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Hirohiko Motoki; Kazuaki Negishi; Kenya Kusunose; Zoran B Popović; Mandeep Bhargava; Oussama M Wazni; Walid I Saliba; Mina K Chung; Thomas H Marwick; Allan L Klein Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Brendan N Putko; Haran Yogasundaram; Kelvin Chow; Joseph Pagano; Aneal Khan; D Ian Paterson; Richard B Thompson; Gavin Y Oudit Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 6.875