BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified associations of left ventricular (LV) mass with demographic (body habitus and sex) and hemodynamic variables (blood pressure, stroke volume [SV], and myocardial contractility), but the relative strength and independence of these associations remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the relations of echocardiographically determined LV mass to demographic variables, blood pressure, Doppler SV, and measures of contractility (end-systolic stress [ESS]/end-systolic volume index and midwall fractional shortening [MFS] as a percentage of predicted for circumferential end-systolic stress [stress-independent shortening]) in 1935 American Indian participants in the Strong Heart Study phase 2 examination without mitral regurgitation or segmental wall motion abnormalities. Weak positive relations of LV mass with systolic and diastolic pressures (r=.22 and r=.20) were exceeded by positive relations with height (r=.30), weight (r=.47), body mass index (r=.31), body surface area (r=.49), and Doppler SV (r=.50) and negative relations with ESS/volume index ratios (r= -.33 and -.29) and stress-independent MFS (r= -.26, all P<.0001). In multivariate analyses that included blood pressure, SV, and a different contractility measure in each model, systolic pressure, stroke volume, and the contractility measure were independent correlates of LV mass (multiple R=.60 to .66, all P<.0001). When demographic variables were added, LV mass was more strongly predicted by higher SV and lower afterload-independent MFS than by greater systolic pressure, height, and body mass index (each P<.00001, multiple R=.71). CONCLUSIONS: Additional characterization of volume load and contractile efficiency improves hemodynamic prediction of LV mass (R(2)=.30 to .44) over the use of systolic blood pressure alone (R(2)=.05), with a further increase in R(2) to .51 when demographic variables are also considered. However, nearly half of the ventricular mass variability remains unexplained.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified associations of left ventricular (LV) mass with demographic (body habitus and sex) and hemodynamic variables (blood pressure, stroke volume [SV], and myocardial contractility), but the relative strength and independence of these associations remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the relations of echocardiographically determined LV mass to demographic variables, blood pressure, Doppler SV, and measures of contractility (end-systolic stress [ESS]/end-systolic volume index and midwall fractional shortening [MFS] as a percentage of predicted for circumferential end-systolic stress [stress-independent shortening]) in 1935 American Indian participants in the Strong Heart Study phase 2 examination without mitral regurgitation or segmental wall motion abnormalities. Weak positive relations of LV mass with systolic and diastolic pressures (r=.22 and r=.20) were exceeded by positive relations with height (r=.30), weight (r=.47), body mass index (r=.31), body surface area (r=.49), and Doppler SV (r=.50) and negative relations with ESS/volume index ratios (r= -.33 and -.29) and stress-independent MFS (r= -.26, all P<.0001). In multivariate analyses that included blood pressure, SV, and a different contractility measure in each model, systolic pressure, stroke volume, and the contractility measure were independent correlates of LV mass (multiple R=.60 to .66, all P<.0001). When demographic variables were added, LV mass was more strongly predicted by higher SV and lower afterload-independent MFS than by greater systolic pressure, height, and body mass index (each P<.00001, multiple R=.71). CONCLUSIONS: Additional characterization of volume load and contractile efficiency improves hemodynamic prediction of LV mass (R(2)=.30 to .44) over the use of systolic blood pressure alone (R(2)=.05), with a further increase in R(2) to .51 when demographic variables are also considered. However, nearly half of the ventricular mass variability remains unexplained.
Authors: Senthil Selvaraj; Sanjiv J Shah; Mark J Ommerborn; Cheryl R Clark; Michael E Hall; Robert J Mentz; Saadia Qazi; Jeremy M Robbins; Thomas N Skelton; Jiaying Chen; J Michael Gaziano; Luc Djoussé Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Marina De Marco; Eva Gerdts; Costantino Mancusi; Mary J Roman; Mai Tone Lønnebakken; Elisa T Lee; Barbara V Howard; Richard B Devereux; Giovanni de Simone Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Hans Scheffel; Sebastian Leschka; Thomas Schertler; Thomas Frauenfelder; Philipp A Kaufmann; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-04-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Krati Chauhan; Richard B Devereux; Dc Rao; Ulrich Broeckel; Charles C Gu; Paul Hopkins; Donna K Arnett Journal: Int J Mol Epidemiol Genet Date: 2010-02-26
Authors: Amil M Shah; Susan Cheng; Hicham Skali; Justina Wu; Judy R Mangion; Dalane Kitzman; Kunihiro Matsushita; Suma Konety; Kenneth R Butler; Ervin R Fox; Nakela Cook; Hanyu Ni; Josef Coresh; Thomas H Mosley; Gerardo Heiss; Aaron R Folsom; Scott D Solomon Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Susan B Yeon; Carol J Salton; Philimon Gona; Michael L Chuang; Susan J Blease; Yuchi Han; Connie W Tsao; Peter G Danias; Daniel Levy; Christopher J O'Donnell; Warren J Manning Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Hassan A Chami; Richard B Devereux; John S Gottdiener; Reena Mehra; Mary J Roman; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel J Gottlieb Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-05-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Takuya Hasegawa; Bernadette Boden-Albala; Kazuo Eguchi; Zhezhen Jin; Ralph L Sacco; Shunichi Homma; Marco R Di Tullio Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 2.689