Mary Paranicas

BACKGROUND: Whether diabetes mellitus (DM) adversely affects left ventricular (LV) structure and function independently of increases in body mass index (BMI) and blood pressure is controversial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Echocardiography was used in the Strong Heart Study, a study of cardiovascular disease in American Indians, to compare LV measurements between 1810 participants with DM and 944 with normal glucose tolerance. Participants with DM were older (mean age, 60 versus 59 years), had higher BMI (32.4 versus 28.9 kg/m(2)) and systolic blood pressure (133 versus 124 mm Hg), and were more likely to be female, to be on antihypertensive treatment, and to live in Arizona (all P<0.001). In analyses adjusted for covariates, women and men with DM had higher LV mass and wall thicknesses and lower LV fractional shortening, midwall shortening, and stress-corrected midwall shortening (all P<0.002). Pulse pressure/stroke volume, a measure of arterial stiffness, was higher in participants with DM (P<0.001 independent of confounders). CONCLUSIONS: Non-insulin-dependent DM has independent adverse cardiac effects, including increased LV mass and wall thicknesses, reduced LV systolic chamber and myocardial function, and increased arterial stiffness. These findings identify adverse cardiovascular effects of DM, independent of associated increases in BMI and arterial pressure, that may contribute to cardiovascular events in diabetic individuals.

The degree to which ethnic differences in left ventricular structure among hypertensive adults are independent of clinical and hemodynamic factors remains uncertain. We assessed whether left ventricular mass and geometry differ between black and white hypertensives after accounting for differences in such factors. Our study group comprised 1060 black and 580 white hypertensive participants free of valvular or coronary disease in a population-based cohort. Blood pressure was measured during a clinic visit and echocardiography was performed using standardized protocols. After controlling for clinical and hemodynamic parameters (cardiac index, peripheral resistance index, and pulse pressure/stroke index), both left ventricular mass and relative wall thickness were higher in blacks than whites (173.9+/-30.9 versus 168.3+/-24.3 grams, P=0.006, and 0.355+/-0.055 versus 0.340+/-0.055 grams, P<0.001). Similarly, the adjusted risk of having left ventricular hypertrophy, whether indexed by height(2.7) or by body surface area, was greater for blacks than for whites (odds ratio: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.29 to 2.51; and odds ratio: 2.50; 95% CI: 1.58 to 3.96, respectively), and this was also true for concentric geometry (odds ratio: 2.28; 95% CI: 1.22 to 4.25). Further adjustment for relatedness in this genetic epidemiological study did not attenuate these differences. Our findings confirm the strong association between black ethnicity and increased left ventricular mass and relative wall thickness in hypertensive adults and demonstrate that these differences are independent of standard clinical and hemodynamic parameters. Whether such differences relate to distinct ambulatory pressure profiles or an ethnic propensity to cardiac hypertrophy requires further investigation.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have identified associations of left ventricular (LV) mass with demographic (body habitus and sex) and hemodynamic variables (blood pressure, stroke volume [SV], and myocardial contractility), but the relative strength and independence of these associations remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the relations of echocardiographically determined LV mass to demographic variables, blood pressure, Doppler SV, and measures of contractility (end-systolic stress [ESS]/end-systolic volume index and midwall fractional shortening [MFS] as a percentage of predicted for circumferential end-systolic stress [stress-independent shortening]) in 1935 American Indian participants in the Strong Heart Study phase 2 examination without mitral regurgitation or segmental wall motion abnormalities. Weak positive relations of LV mass with systolic and diastolic pressures (r=.22 and r=.20) were exceeded by positive relations with height (r=.30), weight (r=.47), body mass index (r=.31), body surface area (r=.49), and Doppler SV (r=.50) and negative relations with ESS/volume index ratios (r= -.33 and -.29) and stress-independent MFS (r= -.26, all P<.0001). In multivariate analyses that included blood pressure, SV, and a different contractility measure in each model, systolic pressure, stroke volume, and the contractility measure were independent correlates of LV mass (multiple R=.60 to .66, all P<.0001). When demographic variables were added, LV mass was more strongly predicted by higher SV and lower afterload-independent MFS than by greater systolic pressure, height, and body mass index (each P<.00001, multiple R=.71). CONCLUSIONS: Additional characterization of volume load and contractile efficiency improves hemodynamic prediction of LV mass (R(2)=.30 to .44) over the use of systolic blood pressure alone (R(2)=.05), with a further increase in R(2) to .51 when demographic variables are also considered. However, nearly half of the ventricular mass variability remains unexplained.