Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2009
Left ventricular end-systolic stress in young adults: distribution, risk factors, and relation to cardiovascular disease events.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Santo-Domingo Noel E, Orlov Michael, Wong Nathan D, Kurosaki Tom, Reid Cheryl L, Hsieh Ann-Ming Andy, Gardin Julius M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We examined the relationship of left ventricular (LV) end-systolic meridional wall stress (LVESS), a measure of LV afterload, with race, gender, other cardiovascular risk factors and LV mass in 3,994 young adults in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study.
METHODS: From transthoracic echocardiography, LVESS was derived from LV internal dimension and posterior wall thickness and systolic blood pressure (BP).
RESULTS: Adjusted LVESS was significantly greater in black men versus women (59.0 vs. 54.8 dynes/cm, P < 0.01) and in white men versus women (59.0 vs. 55.4 dynes/cm(2), P < 0.01), but did not differ in comparing whites versus blacks either in men or women. In multiple regression analyses, age and LV mass were inversely (P < 0.01) and height was positively (P < 0.01) associated with LVESS. The overall variance of LVESS explained by the models in each race-sex subgroup was low (R(2) less than 0.03), suggesting that standard risk factors contribute little to determining LVESS in young adults. Over a 15-year follow-up period, LVESS, after the adjustment for covarieties, was not associated with the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events.
CONCLUSION: LVESS may not be a useful marker of cardiovascular risk in young adults; further study is needed to determine whether other echocardiographic measures may be more useful predictors.
METHODS: From transthoracic echocardiography, LVESS was derived from LV internal dimension and posterior wall thickness and systolic blood pressure (BP).
RESULTS: Adjusted LVESS was significantly greater in black men versus women (59.0 vs. 54.8 dynes/cm, P < 0.01) and in white men versus women (59.0 vs. 55.4 dynes/cm(2), P < 0.01), but did not differ in comparing whites versus blacks either in men or women. In multiple regression analyses, age and LV mass were inversely (P < 0.01) and height was positively (P < 0.01) associated with LVESS. The overall variance of LVESS explained by the models in each race-sex subgroup was low (R(2) less than 0.03), suggesting that standard risk factors contribute little to determining LVESS in young adults. Over a 15-year follow-up period, LVESS, after the adjustment for covarieties, was not associated with the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events.
CONCLUSION: LVESS may not be a useful marker of cardiovascular risk in young adults; further study is needed to determine whether other echocardiographic measures may be more useful predictors.