Various ways of calculating echocardiographic left ventricular mass and their relative prognostic values

Objective To compare the calculations of left ventricular mass according to thick-wall [American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) and Penn convention] and thin-wall (Wikstrand formula) models. Methods We have reexamined the data from the cross-sectional study on the general population sample of Vobarno and from a prospective longitudinal study of hypertensive patients assessing the prognostic significance of changes in left ventricular mass during a follow-up period of 10 years on average (Brescia population). Results For the Vobarno and Brescia populations, we found a close relationship between values of left ventricular mass calculated by using a thin-wall ellipsoidal model (Wikstrand formula) and those calculated using a thick-wall model with Penn convention or ASE left ventricle measurements (r = 0.99, for both the Vobarno and Brescia populations). Highest values of Penn left ventricle mass were slightly underestimated by use of the thin-wall formula. The numbers of nonfatal cardiovascular events and the relative risks, evaluated by Cox proportional hazard models for 151 patients seen at follow-up did not differ for patients with persistence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), those with regression of LVH, and those with normal left ventricle mass, both at baseline and at follow-up, when these different ways of measuring left ventricle mass and partition values for LVH were used. Conclusions The calculation of left ventricle mass according to the ASE recommendations or to the Penn convention, both of which are based on the assumption that the left ventricle can be represented by a prolate ellipsoid with both the internal and external long axes twice the short axis, produces results similar to those obtained using an alternate formula for the calculation of left ventricle mass, considering wall thickness constant around the ellipsoidal cavity. The cardiovascular risk stratification, in relation both to baseline left ventricular mass and to its change during long-term antihypertensive treatment, does not differ significantly among the results of these three different calculations.

[1]  G. de Simone,et al.  Clinical impact of various geometric models for calculation of echocardiographic left ventricular mass , 1998, Journal of hypertension.

[2]  J. Wikstrand Calculation of left ventricular mass in man--a comment. , 1997, Journal of hypertension.

[3]  A. Zanchetti A welcome debate on how to measure the left ventricular mass. , 1997, Journal of hypertension.

[4]  R. Pini,et al.  Measurement of left ventricular mass: methodology and expertise. , 1997, Journal of hypertension.

[5]  P. Okin,et al.  Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy as a surrogate end-point for morbid events in hypertension treatment trials , 1996, Journal of hypertension. Supplement : official journal of the International Society of Hypertension.

[6]  R. Underwood,et al.  Echocardiography overestimates left ventricular mass: a comparative study with magnetic resonance imaging in patients with hypertension , 1996, Journal of hypertension.

[7]  R. Zulli,et al.  Cardiac and vascular structural changes. Prevalence and relation to ambulatory blood pressure in a middle-aged general population in northern Italy: the Vobarno Study. , 1996, Hypertension.

[8]  D. Rizzoni,et al.  Association of change in left ventricular mass with prognosis during long-term antihypertensive treatment , 1995, Journal of hypertension.

[9]  G. Reboldi,et al.  Ambulatory blood pressure. An independent predictor of prognosis in essential hypertension. , 1994, Hypertension.

[10]  D. King,et al.  Three-dimensional echocardiography: in vitro and in vivo validation of left ventricular mass and comparison with conventional echocardiographic methods. , 1994, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  J. Ghali,et al.  The Prognostic Role of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Patients with or without Coronary Artery Disease , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  J. Laragh,et al.  Patterns of left ventricular hypertrophy and geometric remodeling in essential hypertension. , 1992, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  J. Laragh,et al.  Relation of left ventricular mass and geometry to morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated essential hypertension. , 1991, Annals of internal medicine.

[14]  D E Manyari,et al.  Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham Heart Study. , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  N. Reichek,et al.  Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy: comparison to necropsy findings. , 1986, The American journal of cardiology.

[16]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[17]  A. DeMaria,et al.  Recommendations Regarding Quantitation in M-Mode Echocardiography: Results of a Survey of Echocardiographic Measurements , 1978, Circulation.

[18]  N Reichek,et al.  Echocardiographic Determination of Left Ventricular Mass in Man: Anatomic Validation of the Method , 1977, Circulation.