4.6 Article

Lack of Reduction of Left Ventricular Mass in Treated Hypertension: The Strong Heart Study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000144

关键词

antihypertensive therapy; blood pressure; obesity; proteinuria; ventricular hypertrophy

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD [HL41642, HL41652, HL41654, HL65521, M10RR0047-34]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Hypertensive left ventricular mass (LVM) is expected to decrease during antihypertensive therapy, based on results of clinical trials. Methods and Results-We assessed 4-year change of echocardiographic LVM in 851 hypertensive free-living participants of the Strong Heart Study (57% women, 81% treated). Variations of 5% or more of the initial systolic blood pressure (SBP) and LVM were categorized for analysis. At baseline, 23% of men and 36% of women exhibited LV hypertrophy (LVH, P<0.0001). At the follow-up, 3% of men and 10% of women had regression of LVH (P<0.0001 between genders); 14% of men and 15% of women, free of baseline LVH, developed LVH. There was an increase in LVM over time, more in men than in women (P<0.001). Participants whose LVM did not decrease had similar baseline SBP and diastolic BP, but higher body mass index (BMI), waist/hip ratio, heart rate (all P<0.008), and urinary albumin/creatinine excretion (P<0.001) than those whose LVM decreased. After adjusting for field center, initial LVM index, target BP, and kinship degree, lack of decrease in LVM was predicted by higher baseline BMI and urinary albumin/creatinine excretion, independently of classes of antihypertensive medications, and significant effects of older age, male gender, and percentage increase in BP over time. Similar findings were obtained in the subpopulation (n=526) with normal BP at follow-up. Conclusions-In a free-living population, higher BMI is associated with less reduction of hypertensive LVH; lack of reduction of LVM is independent of BP control and of types of antihypertensive treatment, but is associated with renal damage.

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