Isaac R Whitman1, Vickas V Patel2, Elsayed Z Soliman3, David A Bluemke4, Amy Praestgaard5, Aditya Jain6, David Herrington7, Joao A C Lima6, Steven M Kawut8. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco, California. 2. Department of Medicine, Penn Cardiovascular Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Departments of Epidemiology and Prevention and Internal Medicine, Cardiology Section, Epidemiological Cardiology Research Center (EPICARE), Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 4. Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health/Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 8. Department of Medicine, Penn Cardiovascular Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: kawut@upenn.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess the diagnostic properties of electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for right ventricular hypertrophy (RVH) measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) in adults without clinical cardiovascular disease. BACKGROUND: Current ECG criteria for RVH were based on cadaveric dissection in small studies. METHODS: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) performed cMRIs with complete right ventricle (RV) interpretation on 4,062 participants without clinical cardiovascular disease. Endocardial margins of the RV were manually contoured on diastolic and systolic images. The ECG screening criteria for RVH from the 2009 American Heart Association Recommendations for Standardization and Interpretation of the ECG were examined in participants with and without left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy or reduced ejection fraction. RVH was defined using sex-specific normative equations based on age, height, and weight. RESULTS: The study sample with normal LV morphology and function (n = 3,719) was age 61.3 ± 10.0 years, 53.5% female, 39.6% Caucasian, 25.5% African American, 21.9% Hispanic, and 13.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 27.9 ± 5.0 kg/m(2). A total of 6% had RVH, which was generally mild. Traditional ECG criteria were specific (many >95%) but had low sensitivity for RVH by cMRI. The positive predictive values were not sufficiently high as to be clinically useful (maximum 12%). The results did not differ based on age, sex, race, or smoking status, or with the inclusion of participants with abnormal LV mass or function. Classification and regression tree analysis revealed that no combination of ECG variables was better than the criteria used singly. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended ECG screening criteria for RVH are not sufficiently sensitive or specific for screening for mild RVH in adults without clinical cardiovascular disease.
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess the diagnostic properties of electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for right ventricular hypertrophy (RVH) measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) in adults without clinical cardiovascular disease. BACKGROUND: Current ECG criteria for RVH were based on cadaveric dissection in small studies. METHODS: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) performed cMRIs with complete right ventricle (RV) interpretation on 4,062 participants without clinical cardiovascular disease. Endocardial margins of the RV were manually contoured on diastolic and systolic images. The ECG screening criteria for RVH from the 2009 American Heart Association Recommendations for Standardization and Interpretation of the ECG were examined in participants with and without left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy or reduced ejection fraction. RVH was defined using sex-specific normative equations based on age, height, and weight. RESULTS: The study sample with normal LV morphology and function (n = 3,719) was age 61.3 ± 10.0 years, 53.5% female, 39.6% Caucasian, 25.5% African American, 21.9% Hispanic, and 13.0% Asian. The mean body mass index was 27.9 ± 5.0 kg/m(2). A total of 6% had RVH, which was generally mild. Traditional ECG criteria were specific (many >95%) but had low sensitivity for RVH by cMRI. The positive predictive values were not sufficiently high as to be clinically useful (maximum 12%). The results did not differ based on age, sex, race, or smoking status, or with the inclusion of participants with abnormal LV mass or function. Classification and regression tree analysis revealed that no combination of ECG variables was better than the criteria used singly. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended ECG screening criteria for RVH are not sufficiently sensitive or specific for screening for mild RVH in adults without clinical cardiovascular disease.
Authors: Alessandra Meris; Francesco Faletra; Cristina Conca; Catherine Klersy; François Regoli; Julia Klimusina; Maria Penco; Elena Pasotti; Giovanni B Pedrazzini; Tiziano Moccetti; Angelo Auricchio Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2010-06-19 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: E William Hancock; Barbara J Deal; David M Mirvis; Peter Okin; Paul Kligfield; Leonard S Gettes; James J Bailey; Rory Childers; Anton Gorgels; Mark Josephson; Jan A Kors; Peter Macfarlane; Jay W Mason; Olle Pahlm; Pentti M Rautaharju; Borys Surawicz; Gerard van Herpen; Galen S Wagner; Hein Wellens Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jeffrey L Anderson; Cynthia D Adams; Elliott M Antman; Charles R Bridges; Robert M Califf; Donald E Casey; William E Chavey; Francis M Fesmire; Judith S Hochman; Thomas N Levin; A Michael Lincoff; Eric D Peterson; Pierre Theroux; Nanette Kass Wenger; R Scott Wright; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Aditya Jain; Harikrishna Tandri; Darshan Dalal; Harjit Chahal; Elsayed Z Soliman; Ronald J Prineas; Aaron R Folsom; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Shunsuke Natori; Shenghan Lai; J Paul Finn; Antoinette S Gomes; W Gregory Hundley; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Gregory Pearson; Shantanu Sinha; Andrew Arai; Joao A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Aasha S Gopal; Ebere O Chukwu; Chizor J Iwuchukwu; Alan S Katz; Rena S Toole; William Schapiro; Nathaniel Reichek Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Jane A Leopold; Steven M Kawut; Micheala A Aldred; Stephen L Archer; Ray L Benza; Michael R Bristow; Evan L Brittain; Naomi Chesler; Frances S DeMan; Serpil C Erzurum; Mark T Gladwin; Paul M Hassoun; Anna R Hemnes; Tim Lahm; Joao A C Lima; Joseph Loscalzo; Bradley A Maron; Laura Mercer Rosa; John H Newman; Susan Redline; Stuart Rich; Franz Rischard; Lissa Sugeng; W H Wilson Tang; Ryan J Tedford; Emily J Tsai; Corey E Ventetuolo; YouYang Zhou; Neil R Aggarwal; Lei Xiao Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 10.447