Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society · 2019
Age- and Body Size-Adjusted Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Dimension in a Japanese Hospital-Based Population.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Seko Yuta, Kato Takao, Morita Yusuke, Yamaji Yuhei, Haruna Yoshizumi, Izumi Toshiaki, Miyamoto Shoichi, Nakane Eisaku, Hayashi Hideyuki, Haruna Tetsuya, Inoko Moriaki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Using the normal values for the East Asian population, we evaluated age- and body size-adjusted left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) and its prognostic impact in a hospital-based population in Japan.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed data obtained from 4,444 consecutive patients who had undergone both transthoracic echocardiography and electrocardiography at Kitano Hospital in 2013. Those who presented with a history of previous episodes of myocardial infarction and severe or moderate valvular disease or with low ejection fraction (<50%) were excluded from the analysis. We calculated LVEDD adjusted by age and body surface area. A total of 3,474 patients were categorized into 3 groups: 401 with large adjusted LVEDD, 2,829 with normal adjusted LVEDD, and 244 with small adjusted LVEDD. Mean patient age in the large, normal, and small adjusted LVEDD groups was 66.6±18.4, 65.6±15.7, and 62.1±15.5 years, respectively (P<0.001). After adjusting for confounding factors, the excess adjusted 3-year risk of primary outcome of large adjusted LVEDD relative to normal LVEDD was significant (HR, 1.40; 95% CI: 1.08-1.78). The risk for primary outcomes of small adjusted LVEDD relative to normal adjusted LVEDD was significantly lower (HR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.34-0.85).
CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted large LVEDD has a deleterious impact on long-term mortality, whereas small LVEDD carried a significantly lower risk.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively analyzed data obtained from 4,444 consecutive patients who had undergone both transthoracic echocardiography and electrocardiography at Kitano Hospital in 2013. Those who presented with a history of previous episodes of myocardial infarction and severe or moderate valvular disease or with low ejection fraction (<50%) were excluded from the analysis. We calculated LVEDD adjusted by age and body surface area. A total of 3,474 patients were categorized into 3 groups: 401 with large adjusted LVEDD, 2,829 with normal adjusted LVEDD, and 244 with small adjusted LVEDD. Mean patient age in the large, normal, and small adjusted LVEDD groups was 66.6±18.4, 65.6±15.7, and 62.1±15.5 years, respectively (P<0.001). After adjusting for confounding factors, the excess adjusted 3-year risk of primary outcome of large adjusted LVEDD relative to normal LVEDD was significant (HR, 1.40; 95% CI: 1.08-1.78). The risk for primary outcomes of small adjusted LVEDD relative to normal adjusted LVEDD was significantly lower (HR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.34-0.85).
CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted large LVEDD has a deleterious impact on long-term mortality, whereas small LVEDD carried a significantly lower risk.