Kimmo Porthan1, Teemu J Niiranen, Juha Varis, Ilkka Kantola, Hannu Karanko, Mika Kähönen, Markku S Nieminen, Veikko Salomaa, Heikki V Huikuri, Antti M Jula. 1. aDivision of Cardiology, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki bDivision of Medicine, Turku University Hospital, Turku cDepartment of Health, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Turku/Helsinki dDepartment of Clinical Physiology, University of Tampere eTampere University Hospital, Tampere fInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oulu and University Central Hospital of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a strong risk factor for cardiovascular events. ECG is the most widely used method for LVH detection. Despite the abundance of ECG LVH criteria, their prognostic values have been compared in only a few studies, and little has been known about how sex modifies the prognostic value of LVH. We assessed the relationship between ECG LVH and incident cardiovascular events in the general population. METHODS: Several ECG LVH criteria were measured in 3059 women and 2456 men participating in the Health 2000 Study - a national general population survey. Association between ECG LVH and cardiovascular events were analyzed with Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: ECG LVH was more prevalent in women than in men when measured with Cornell-based criteria, but less prevalent or nondifferent when measured with other criteria. The association between ECG LVH and events showed higher hazard ratios for women than in men. Sex × LVH interaction terms were statistically significant in part of the LVH criteria. In adjusted Cox models, Sokolow-Lyon voltage performed the best. The composite of Sokolow-Lyon voltage and Cornell voltage was statistically significantly associated with events in both sexes. CONCLUSION: Sex affects both the prevalence rates and prognostic values of ECG LVH criteria in the general population, while showing higher prognostic value of ECG LVH in women than in men. For clinical use, the composite of the Sokolow-Lyon voltage and the Cornell voltage seems to be a good option.
OBJECTIVE:Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a strong risk factor for cardiovascular events. ECG is the most widely used method for LVH detection. Despite the abundance of ECG LVH criteria, their prognostic values have been compared in only a few studies, and little has been known about how sex modifies the prognostic value of LVH. We assessed the relationship between ECG LVH and incident cardiovascular events in the general population. METHODS: Several ECG LVH criteria were measured in 3059 women and 2456 men participating in the Health 2000 Study - a national general population survey. Association between ECG LVH and cardiovascular events were analyzed with Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: ECG LVH was more prevalent in women than in men when measured with Cornell-based criteria, but less prevalent or nondifferent when measured with other criteria. The association between ECG LVH and events showed higher hazard ratios for women than in men. Sex × LVH interaction terms were statistically significant in part of the LVH criteria. In adjusted Cox models, Sokolow-Lyon voltage performed the best. The composite of Sokolow-Lyon voltage and Cornell voltage was statistically significantly associated with events in both sexes. CONCLUSION: Sex affects both the prevalence rates and prognostic values of ECG LVH criteria in the general population, while showing higher prognostic value of ECG LVH in women than in men. For clinical use, the composite of the Sokolow-Lyon voltage and the Cornell voltage seems to be a good option.
Authors: Tina E Brinkley; Andrea Anderson; Elsayed Z Soliman; Alain G Bertoni; Frank Greenway; William C Knowler; Stephen P Glasser; Edward S Horton; Mark A Espeland Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: M Yldau van der Ende; Tom Hendriks; Yordi van de Vegte; Erik Lipsic; Harold Snieder; Pim van der Harst Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Jani Rankinen; Petri Haataja; Leo-Pekka Lyytikäinen; Heini Huhtala; Terho Lehtimäki; Mika Kähönen; Markku Eskola; Suvi Tuohinen; Andrés Ricardo Pérez-Riera; Antti Jula; Harri Rissanen; Kjell Nikus; Jussi Hernesniemi Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jan Szewieczek; Zbigniew Gąsior; Jan Duława; Tomasz Francuz; Katarzyna Legierska; Agnieszka Batko-Szwaczka; Beata Hornik; Magdalena Janusz-Jenczeń; Iwona Włodarczyk; Krzysztof Wilczyński Journal: Age (Dordr) Date: 2016-04-02
Authors: M Yldau Van Der Ende; Tom Hendriks; Dirk J Van Veldhuisen; Harold Snieder; Niek Verweij; Pim Van Der Harst Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Heini Sánez Tähtisalo; Timo P Hiltunen; Tuomas Kenttä; Juhani Junttila; Lasse Oikarinen; Juha Virolainen; Kimmo K Kontula; Kimmo Porthan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240