E Harvey Estes1, Zhu-Ming Zhang2, Yabing Li2, Larisa G Tereshchenko3, Elsayed Z Soliman4. 1. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Electronic address: harveyestes@me.com. 2. Epidemiological Cardiology Research Center (EPICARE), Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. 3. Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. 4. Epidemiological Cardiology Research Center (EPICARE), Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC; Department of Medicine, Section on Cardiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been recently reported that the Romhilt-Estes (R-E) score, originally proposed for detection of left ventricular hypertrophy from the electrocardiogram, is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality. Whether the R-E score is also predictive of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and whether its individual components differ in their ability to predict different CVD outcomes are not well established. METHODS: This analysis includes 13,261 participants from the ARIC study who were free of CVD at baseline (1987-1989). Incident CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), and stroke were ascertained by an adjudication committee through December 2010. The R-E left ventricular hypertrophy score was measured from automatically processed baseline electrocardiogram data. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association between baseline the R-E overall score (overall) and each of its 6 individual components separately, with each of the CVD outcomes. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 21.8 years, 3,579, 2,205, 1,814, and 731 CVD, CHD, HF, and stroke events, respectively, occurred. In multivariable adjusted models, R-E score ≥4 points (compared with 0 points) was associated with increased risk of CVD, CHD, HF, and stroke (hazard ratio [95% CI] 1.66 [1.41-1.96], 1.66 [1.34-2.07], 1.97 [1.60-2.43], and 1.49 [1.07-2.07], respectively). The 6 component of the R-E score varied in their relationship to different CVD outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The R-E score is predictive of CVD outcomes. The 6 R-E score components differ in their associations with different CVD outcomes, indicating that they may be electrical biomarkers of different physiological events within the myocardium.
BACKGROUND: It has been recently reported that the Romhilt-Estes (R-E) score, originally proposed for detection of left ventricular hypertrophy from the electrocardiogram, is a strong predictor of all-cause mortality. Whether the R-E score is also predictive of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and whether its individual components differ in their ability to predict different CVD outcomes are not well established. METHODS: This analysis includes 13,261 participants from the ARIC study who were free of CVD at baseline (1987-1989). Incident CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), and stroke were ascertained by an adjudication committee through December 2010. The R-E left ventricular hypertrophy score was measured from automatically processed baseline electrocardiogram data. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association between baseline the R-E overall score (overall) and each of its 6 individual components separately, with each of the CVD outcomes. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 21.8 years, 3,579, 2,205, 1,814, and 731 CVD, CHD, HF, and stroke events, respectively, occurred. In multivariable adjusted models, R-E score ≥4 points (compared with 0 points) was associated with increased risk of CVD, CHD, HF, and stroke (hazard ratio [95% CI] 1.66 [1.41-1.96], 1.66 [1.34-2.07], 1.97 [1.60-2.43], and 1.49 [1.07-2.07], respectively). The 6 component of the R-E score varied in their relationship to different CVD outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The R-E score is predictive of CVD outcomes. The 6 R-E score components differ in their associations with different CVD outcomes, indicating that they may be electrical biomarkers of different physiological events within the myocardium.
Authors: A D White; A R Folsom; L E Chambless; A R Sharret; K Yang; D Conwill; M Higgins; O D Williams; H A Tyroler Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: W D Rosamond; A R Folsom; L E Chambless; C H Wang; P G McGovern; G Howard; L S Copper; E Shahar Journal: Stroke Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Laura R Loehr; Wayne D Rosamond; Patricia P Chang; Aaron R Folsom; Lloyd E Chambless Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-02-14 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Sonia Shah; Christopher P Nelson; Tom R Gaunt; Pim van der Harst; Timothy Barnes; Peter S Braund; Debbie A Lawlor; Juan-Pablo Casas; Sandosh Padmanabhan; Fotios Drenos; Mika Kivimaki; Philippa J Talmud; Steve E Humphries; John Whittaker; Richard W Morris; Peter H Whincup; Anna Dominiczak; Patricia B Munroe; Toby Johnson; Alison H Goodall; Francois Cambien; Patrick Diemert; Christian Hengstenberg; Willem H Ouwehand; Janine F Felix; Nicole L Glazer; Maciej Tomaszewski; Paul R Burton; Martin D Tobin; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Rudolf A de Boer; Gerjan Navis; Wiek H van Gilst; Bongani M Mayosi; John R Thompson; Meena Kumari; Peter W MacFarlane; Ian N M Day; Aroon D Hingorani; Nilesh J Samani Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2011-09-30
Authors: Fernando De la Garza-Salazar; Maria Elena Romero-Ibarguengoitia; Elias Abraham Rodriguez-Diaz; Jose Ramón Azpiri-Lopez; Arnulfo González-Cantu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Fernando De la Garza Salazar; Maria Elena Romero Ibarguengoitia; José Ramón Azpiri López; Arnulfo González Cantú Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240