Ernesto Paoletti1, Luca De Nicola2, Francis B Gabbai3, Paolo Chiodini4, Maura Ravera1, Laura Pieracci1, Sonia Marre1, Paolo Cassottana5, Sergio Lucà6, Simone Vettoretti7, Silvio Borrelli2, Giuseppe Conte2, Roberto Minutolo8. 1. Division of Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) University Hospital San Martino-Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro (IST), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy; 2. Division of Nephrology and. 3. Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and University of California at San Diego Medical School, San Diego, California; 4. Department of Medicine and Public Health, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy; 5. Division of Cardiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino-IST, Genoa, Italy; 6. Division of Cardiology, Santa Maria del Popolo degli Incurabili Hospital (PO SMdP Incurabili), Local Healthcare Unit Napoli1 Centro, Naples, Italy; and. 7. Unit of Nephrology-Dialysis, Urology and Renal Transplantation, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Grande Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 8. Division of Nephrology and roberto.minutolo@unina2.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and abnormal left ventricular (LV) geometry predict adverse outcomes in the general and hypertensive populations, but findings in CKD are still inconclusive. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We enrolled 445 patients with hypertension and CKD stages 2-5 in two academic nephrology clinics in 1999-2003 who underwent both echocardiography and ambulatory BP monitoring. LVH (LV mass >100 g/m(2) [women] and >131 g/m(2) [men]) and relative wall thickness (RWT) were used to define LV geometry: no LVH and RWT≤0.45 (normal), no LVH and RWT>0.45 (remodeling), LVH and RWT≤0.45 (eccentric), and LVH and RWT>0.45 (concentric). We evaluated the prognostic role of LVH and LV geometry on cardiovascular (CV; composite of fatal and nonfatal events) and renal outcomes (composite of ESRD and all-cause death). RESULTS: Age was 64.1±13.8 years old; 19% had diabetes, and 22% had CV disease. eGFR was 39.9±20.2 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). LVH was detected in 249 patients (56.0%); of these, 125 had concentric LVH, and 124 had eccentric pattern, whereas 71 patients had concentric remodeling. Age, women, anemia, and nocturnal hypertension were independently associated with both concentric and eccentric LVH, whereas diabetes and history of CV disease associated with eccentric LVH only, and CKD stages 4 and 5 associated with concentric LVH only. During follow-up (median, 5.9 years; range, 0.04-15.3), 188 renal deaths (112 ESRD) and 103 CV events (61 fatal) occurred. Using multivariable Cox analysis, concentric and eccentric LVH was associated with higher risk of CV outcomes (hazard ratio [HR], 2.59; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.39 to 4.84 and HR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.47 to 5.26, respectively). Similarly, greater risk of renal end point was detected in concentric (HR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.44 to 3.80) and eccentric (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.74) LVH. Sensitivity analysis using LVH and RWT separately showed that LVH but not RWT was associated with higher cardiorenal risk. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CKD, LVH is a strong predictor of the risk of poor CV and renal outcomes independent from LV geometry.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and abnormal left ventricular (LV) geometry predict adverse outcomes in the general and hypertensive populations, but findings in CKD are still inconclusive. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We enrolled 445 patients with hypertension and CKD stages 2-5 in two academic nephrology clinics in 1999-2003 who underwent both echocardiography and ambulatory BP monitoring. LVH (LV mass >100 g/m(2) [women] and >131 g/m(2) [men]) and relative wall thickness (RWT) were used to define LV geometry: no LVH and RWT≤0.45 (normal), no LVH and RWT>0.45 (remodeling), LVH and RWT≤0.45 (eccentric), and LVH and RWT>0.45 (concentric). We evaluated the prognostic role of LVH and LV geometry on cardiovascular (CV; composite of fatal and nonfatal events) and renal outcomes (composite of ESRD and all-cause death). RESULTS: Age was 64.1±13.8 years old; 19% had diabetes, and 22% had CV disease. eGFR was 39.9±20.2 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). LVH was detected in 249 patients (56.0%); of these, 125 had concentric LVH, and 124 had eccentric pattern, whereas 71 patients had concentric remodeling. Age, women, anemia, and nocturnal hypertension were independently associated with both concentric and eccentric LVH, whereas diabetes and history of CV disease associated with eccentric LVH only, and CKD stages 4 and 5 associated with concentric LVH only. During follow-up (median, 5.9 years; range, 0.04-15.3), 188 renal deaths (112 ESRD) and 103 CV events (61 fatal) occurred. Using multivariable Cox analysis, concentric and eccentric LVH was associated with higher risk of CV outcomes (hazard ratio [HR], 2.59; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.39 to 4.84 and HR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.47 to 5.26, respectively). Similarly, greater risk of renal end point was detected in concentric (HR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.44 to 3.80) and eccentric (HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.74) LVH. Sensitivity analysis using LVH and RWT separately showed that LVH but not RWT was associated with higher cardiorenal risk. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CKD, LVH is a strong predictor of the risk of poor CV and renal outcomes independent from LV geometry.
Authors: Ernesto Paoletti; Diego Bellino; Anna Maria Gallina; Marco Amidone; Paolo Cassottana; Giuseppe Cannella Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Roberto Minutolo; Rajiv Agarwal; Silvio Borrelli; Paolo Chiodini; Vincenzo Bellizzi; Felice Nappi; Bruno Cianciaruso; Pasquale Zamboli; Giuseppe Conte; Francis B Gabbai; Luca De Nicola Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-06-27
Authors: Gail E Peterson; Tine de Backer; Gabriel Contreras; Xuelei Wang; Cynthia Kendrick; Tom Greene; Lawrence J Appel; Otelio S Randall; Janice Lea; Miroslaw Smogorzewski; Tudor Vagaonescu; Robert A Phillips Journal: Hypertension Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Meyeon Park; Chi-yuan Hsu; Yongmei Li; Rakesh K Mishra; Martin Keane; Sylvia E Rosas; Daniel Dries; Dawei Xie; Jing Chen; Jiang He; Amanda Anderson; Alan S Go; Michael G Shlipak Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Francis B Gabbai; Mahboob Rahman; Bo Hu; Lawrence J Appel; Jeanne Charleston; Gabriel Contreras; Marquetta L Faulkner; Leena Hiremath; Kenneth A Jamerson; Janice P Lea; Michael S Lipkowitz; Velvie A Pogue; Stephen G Rostand; Miroslaw J Smogorzewski; Jackson T Wright; Tom Greene; Jennifer Gassman; Xuelei Wang; Robert A Phillips Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Ana C Ricardo; James P Lash; Michael J Fischer; Claudia M Lora; Matthew Budoff; Martin G Keane; John W Kusek; Monica Martinez; Lisa Nessel; Thomas Stamos; Akinlolu Ojo; Mahboob Rahman; Elsayed Z Soliman; Wei Yang; Harold I Feldman; Alan S Go Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jorge R Kizer; Donna K Arnett; Jonathan N Bella; Mary Paranicas; D C Rao; Michael A Province; Albert Oberman; Dalane W Kitzman; Paul N Hopkins; Jennifer E Liu; Richard B Devereux Journal: Hypertension Date: 2004-05-03 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Gernot Pichler; Maria Grau-Perez; Maria Tellez-Plaza; Jason Umans; Lyle Best; Shelley Cole; Walter Goessler; Kevin Francesconi; Jonathan Newman; Josep Redon; Richard Devereux; Ana Navas-Acien Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Kathrin Untersteller; Nicolas Girerd; Kevin Duarte; Kyrill S Rogacev; Sarah Seiler-Mussler; Danilo Fliser; Patrick Rossignol; Gunnar H Heine Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Jesse K Fitzpatrick; Andrew P Ambrosy; Rishi V Parikh; Thida C Tan; Nisha Bansal; Alan S Go Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 4.749