Krumholz H M, Larson M, Levy D
Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995 Mar 15;25(4):879-84. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(94)00473-4.
The goal of this study was to determine the incremental prognostic value of left ventricular geometric patterns beyond that provided by cardiovascular disease risk factors, including left ventricular mass.
Left ventricular geometry may be classified into the following four mutually exclusive groups on the basis of left ventricular mass and relative wall thickness: concentric hypertrophy (increased mass and increased relative wall thickness), eccentric hypertrophy (increased mass and normal relative wall thickness), concentric remodeling (normal mass and increased relative wall thickness) and normal geometry (normal mass and normal relative wall thickness). The prognosis associated with these patterns in a population-based sample is not known.
Proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the prognostic importance of left ventricular geometry in 3,216 subjects in the Framingham Heart Study who were > or = 40 years old and free of clinically apparent cardiovascular disease, after adjustment for traditional cardiovascular risk factors and left ventricular mass. The follow-up period was 8 years.
Subjects with concentric hypertrophy had the worst prognosis, followed by those with eccentric hypertrophy, concentric remodeling and normal geometry. Subjects with concentric hypertrophy also had the highest left ventricular mass. The association between type of geometry and prognosis was largely attenuated by adjustment for baseline differences in left ventricular mass. The odds ratio for incident cardiovascular disease in subjects with concentric hypertrophy compared with those who had normal geometry was 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8 to 2.1) in men and 1.2 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.3) in women after adjustment for other cardiovascular risk factors, including left ventricular mass.
In a population-based sample of subjects without cardiovascular disease, knowledge of left ventricular geometry provided little prognostic information beyond that available from left ventricular mass and traditional cardiovascular risk factors.
本研究的目的是确定左心室几何形态超出心血管疾病危险因素(包括左心室质量)所提供的增量预后价值。
根据左心室质量和相对壁厚,左心室几何形态可分为以下四个相互排斥的组:向心性肥厚(质量增加和相对壁厚增加)、离心性肥厚(质量增加和相对壁厚正常)、向心性重塑(质量正常和相对壁厚增加)和正常几何形态(质量正常和相对壁厚正常)。基于人群样本中这些形态的预后尚不清楚。
在弗明汉心脏研究中,对3216名年龄≥40岁且无临床明显心血管疾病的受试者,在调整传统心血管危险因素和左心室质量后,使用比例风险回归模型评估左心室几何形态的预后重要性。随访期为8年。
向心性肥厚的受试者预后最差,其次是离心性肥厚、向心性重塑和正常几何形态的受试者。向心性肥厚的受试者左心室质量也最高。通过调整左心室质量的基线差异,几何形态类型与预后之间的关联在很大程度上减弱。在调整包括左心室质量在内的其他心血管危险因素后,男性中向心性肥厚受试者与正常几何形态受试者相比,发生心血管疾病的比值比为1.3(95%置信区间[CI]0.8至2.1),女性为1.2(95%CI0.6至2.3)。
在无心血管疾病的基于人群的样本中,左心室几何形态的知识除了左心室质量和传统心血管危险因素所提供的信息外,几乎没有提供预后信息。