4.6 Article

Combining ECG Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Improves Risk Prediction in Patients With Hypertension

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.007564

关键词

ECG criteria; ECG; hypertension; hypertrophy; prognosi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Patients with hypertension with ECG left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) have higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, but single ECG criteria may underestimate risk. Whether continued presence or new development of ECG LVH by 2 criteria can further concentrate risk during blood pressure lowering is unclear. Methods and Results-Incident stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, the composite of these outcomes, and all-cause mortality were examined in relation to the presence of on-treatment ECG LVH by Cornell product and/or Sokolow-Lyon voltage during a mean of 4.8 +/- 0.9 years follow-up in 9193 patients with hypertension randomized to losartan-or atenolol-based regimens. Patients were categorized into 4 groups according to the presence or absence of ECG LVH by each criterion at baseline and yearly during the study. At baseline, LVH by both criteria was present in 960 patients (10.4%). Compared with the absence of ECG LVH by both criteria, persistence or development of ECG LVH by both criteria entered as a time-varying covariate was associated with >3-fold increased risks of events in multivariable Cox analyses adjusting for randomized treatment, baseline risk factors, and on-treatment heart rate and systolic and diastolic blood pressures. Patients with ECG LVH by either Cornell product or Sokolow-Lyon voltage had 45% to 140% higher risks of all end points. Conclusions-Persistence or development of ECG LVH by both Cornell product and Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria during antihypertensive therapy is associated with markedly increased risks of cardiovascular end points and all-cause mortality. Further study is indicated to determine whether additional therapy in these patients can reduce their risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据