Search

Objectives: This study was performed to determine whether a 4-tiered classification of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) defines subgroups in the general population that are at variable risks of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes., Background: We recently proposed a 4-tiered classification of LVH where eccentric LVH is subdivided into "indeterminate hypertrophy" and "dilated hypertrophy" and concentric LVH into "thick hypertrophy" and "both thick and dilated hypertrophy," based on the presence of increased left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume., Methods: Participants from the Dallas Heart study who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance and did not have LV dysfunction or a history of heart failure (HF) (n = 2,458) were followed for a median of 9 years for the primary outcome of HF or CV death. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to adjust for age, sex, African-American race, hypertension, diabetes, and history of CV disease., Results: In the cohort, 70% had no LVH, 404 (16%) had indeterminate hypertrophy, 30 (1%) had dilated hypertrophy, 289 (12%) had thick hypertrophy, and 7 (0.2%) had both thick and dilated hypertrophy. The cumulative incidence of HF or CV death was 2% with no LVH, 1.7% with indeterminate, 16.7% with dilated, 11.1% with thick, and 42.9% with both thick and dilated hypertrophy (log-rank p < 0.0001). Compared with participants without LVH, those with dilated (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.8 to 18.8), thick (HR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.4 to 4.0), and both thick and dilated (HR: 5.8; 95% CI: 1.7 to 19.5) hypertrophy remained at increased risk for HF or CV death after multivariable adjustment, whereas the group with indeterminate hypertrophy was not (HR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4 to 2.2)., Conclusions: In the general population, the 4-tiered classification system for LVH stratified LVH into subgroups with differential risk of adverse CV outcomes., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lifetime risk estimation for cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been proposed as a useful strategy to improve risk communication in the primary prevention setting. However, the perception of lifetime risk for CVD is unknown. We included 2,998 subjects from the Dallas Heart Study. Lifetime risk for developing CVD was classified as high (≥39%) versus low (<39%) according to risk factor burden as described in our previously published algorithm. Perception of lifetime risk for myocardial infarction was assessed by way of a 5-point scale. Baseline characteristics were compared across levels of perceived lifetime risk. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association of participant characteristics with level of perceived lifetime risk for CVD and with correctness of perceptions. Of the 2,998 participants, 64.8% (n = 1,942) were classified as having high predicted lifetime risk for CVD. There was significant discordance between perceived and predicted lifetime risk. After multivariable adjustment, family history of premature myocardial infarction, high self-reported stress, and low perceived health were all strongly associated with high perceived lifetime risk (odds ratio [OR] 2.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72 to 3.27; OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.83; and OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.09 to 3.53; respectively). However, the association between traditional CVD risk factors and high perceived lifetime risk was more modest. In conclusion, misperception of lifetime risk for CVD is common and frequently reflects the influence of factors other than traditional risk factor levels. These findings highlight the importance of effectively communicating the significance of traditional risk factors in determining the lifetime risk for CVD., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)