Filtern
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (3)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- ja (3)
Dokumenttyp
Schlagworte
- ASE formula (1)
- P450scc Sp1 Sp4 Ku Neurosteroide (1)
- P450scc Sp1 Sp4 Ku Neurosteroids (1)
- Teichholz formula (1)
- aldosterone (1)
- cardiovascular events (1)
- cortisol (1)
- echocardiography (1)
- hemodialysis (1)
- kidney disease (1)
- left ventricular hypertrophy (1)
- left ventricular mass index (1)
- mortality (1)
- sudden cardiac death (1)
Institut
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I (2)
- Deutsches Zentrum für Herzinsuffizienz (DZHI) (1)
- Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie (1)
- Institut für diagnostische und interventionelle Radiologie (Institut für Röntgendiagnostik) (1)
- Medizinische Klinik (bis 2004) (1)
- Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II (1)
Background: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), defined by the left ventricular mass index (LVMI), is highly prevalent in hemodialysis patients and a strong independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), echocardiography tends to overestimate the LVMI. Here, we evaluate the diagnostic performance of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) compared to CMR regarding the assessment of LVMI in hemodialysis patients.
Methods: TTR and CMR data for 95 hemodialysis patients who participated in the MiREnDa trial were analyzed. The LVMI was calculated by two-dimensional (2D) TTE-guided M-mode measurements employing the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) and Teichholz (Th) formulas, which were compared to the reference method, CMR.
Results: LVH was present in 44% of patients based on LVMI measured by CMR. LVMI measured by echocardiography correlated moderately with CMR, ASE: r = 0.44 (0.34-0.62); Th: r = 0.44 (0.32-0.62). Compared to CMR, both echocardiographic formulas overestimated LVMI (mean increment LVMI (ASE-CMR): 19.5 +/- 19.48 g/m(2),p < 0.001; mean increment LVMI (Th-CMR): 15.9 +/- 15.89 g/m(2),p < 0.001). We found greater LVMI overestimation in patients with LVH using the ASE formula compared to the Th formula. Stratification of patients into CMR LVMI quartiles showed a continuous decrease in increment LVMI with increasing CMR LVMI quartiles for the Th formula (p < 0.001) but not for the ASE formula (p = 0.772). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the Th formula had a constant bias independent of LVMI. Both methods had good discrimination ability for the detection of LVH (ROC-AUC: 0.819 (0.737-0.901) and 0.808 (0.723-0.892) for Th and ASE, respectively).
Conclusions: The ASE and Th formulas overestimate LVMI in hemodialysis patients. However, the overestimation is less with the Th formula, particularly with increasing LVMI. The results suggest that the Th formula should be preferred for measurement of LVMI in chronic hemodialysis patients.