left ventricular geometric patterns after 1 year of antihypertensive treatment

VOL. 7 NO. 6 JUNE 2005 THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION 333

Left ventricular hypertrophy increases the risk for cardiovascular target organ damage, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The authors assessed the patterns of ventricular adaptation in 107 essential hypertensives whose treatment had been with-drawn and its modification after 1 year of hyper-tension treatment. Blood pressure decreased from 158±17/96±12 mm Hg to 137±15/83±10 mm Hg (mean ± SD; p<0.001); 45% of the patients (49 of 107) had their blood pressure controlled below 140 mm Hg and 90 mm Hg. Although a signifi-cant decrease of left ventricular mass index was found in the study, the percentage of patients with normal left ventricular geometry at the comple-tion of the study increased by only 9% (27% to 36%, p>0.05). Left ventricular mass geometry improved in 31% of the patients, remained unaf-fected in 51%, and worsened in 18%. The data suggest that even while suboptimal antihyperten-sive treatment reduces left ventricular mass index, either left ventricular hypertrophy or concentric remodeling remains present in a significant num-ber of patients at the end of a 1-year treatment period. The authors conclude that these patients should be considered as a subgroup at high risk

and should be treated more aggressively. (J Clin Hypertens. 2005;7:333–338) ©2005 Le Jacq Ltd.

The pattern of left ventricular (LV) adaptation to increased afterload is an important determi-

nant of the risk of future cardiovascular (CV) com-plications in essential hypertensive subjects.1,2 In a long-term prospective study, Koren et al.3 found that the risk of CV events was increased not only in patients with both concentric and eccentric LV hypertrophy (LVH), but also in those with LV con-centric remodeling, a situation defined by increases in relative wall thickness (RWT) with normal LV mass (LVM). In 1992, Ganau et al.4 reported the patterns of ventricular geometric adaptation in 165 hypertensive subjects. They found that 13% had concentric remodeling, 27% eccentric LVH (increase LVM with normal RWT), and only 8% had concentric LVH (increased LVM and RWT). Similar results were obtained in two other studies conducted in Japan5 and Spain.6 In the Spanish study,6 only 35% of 218 essential hypertensives showed a normal LVM, while hypertension was associated with concentric hypertrophy (23%), eccentric hypertrophy (23%), or concentric remod-eling (19%).

The increased risk for clinical events in hyper-tensive subjects is markedly reduced and even normalized following regression of LVH.7–9 For this reason, regression of LVH has emerged as an important goal in the treatment of hypertensive patients. Data from comparative studies indicate a reduction of LVM with almost all antihypertensive drugs.10,11 However, the results of these studies usually are presented only in terms of reduction in both wall dimensions and LVM index (LVMI). Although these parameters are useful, no studies

O r i g i n a l P a p e r

Left Ventricular Geometric Patterns After 1 Year of Antihypertensive Treatment

Manuel Luque, MD;1 Nieves Martell, MD;1 Isabel Egocheaga, MD;1 Carmen Fernandez-Pinilla, MD;1 Jose Zamorano, MD;2 Carlos Almeria, MD;2 Arturo Fernandez-Cruz, MD;1 Carlos M. Ferrario, MD3

From the Hypertension Unit;1 and Department of Cardiology;2 Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain; and Hypertension and Vascular Disease Center, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC3

Address for correspondence: Manuel Luque, MD, Hypertension Unit, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain E-mail: [email protected] received October 19, 2004; revised February 21, 2005; accepted February 22, 2005

www.lejacq.com ID: 3889

The Journal of Clinical Hypertension (ISSN 1524-6175) is published monthly by Le Jacq Ltd., Three Parklands Drive, Darien, CT 06820-3652. Copyright ©2005 by Le Jacq Ltd., All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. The opinions and ideas expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Editors or Publisher. For copies in excess of 25 or for commercial purposes, please contact Sarah Howell at [email protected] or 203.656.1711 x106.

THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION VOL. 7 NO. 6 JUNE 2005334

to date have characterized the effect of antihyper-tensive treatment on the different patterns of LV adaptation. Therefore, we assessed the prevalence of ventricular geometric adaptation patterns in untreated essential hypertensives and its modifica-tion after 1 year of treatment.

METHODSPatientsOne hundred seven essential hypertensive patients (29% women) consecutively studied in the hyper-tension unit of the Hospital Clinico San Carlos with an echocardiogram (Echo) of good quality were accepted to participate in the study. Essential hypertension was diagnosed after an extensive investigation of secondary causes of hypertension, including isotopic renogram. A written informed consent was obtained from all of the subjects and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Antihypertensive drugs were stopped at least 6 weeks before obtaining a base-line Echo. Patients with diabetes mellitus, body mass index >30 kg/m2, renal insufficiency (serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL), or antecedents of angina, myocardial infarction, or stroke were excluded from the study.

Office blood pressure (BP) was measured at two separate visits spaced 5–7 days apart, and again twice before the Echo procedure in the supine posi-tion. The day of the Echo, 24-hour urine was col-lected to measure sodium excretion. The patients were examined again 1 year later. Treatment was not standardized since the follow-up therapy was managed by referring physicians. Treatment was initiated with combination therapy in 26% of the patients, whereas monotherapy with diuretics was used in 5%, β blockers in 20%, calcium antago-nists in 6%, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibi-tors in 30%, and nonpharmacologic measures in 13%. The goal of treatment was to achieve a BP below 140 mm Hg and 90 mm Hg. During the fol-low-up, a total of 44 patients (41%) required more than one drug to control their BP.

EchocardiographyTwo-dimensional guided M-mode Echos (Hewlett-Packard 5.500, Andover, MA) were obtained with the patients lying in the left lateral position with the head elevated 30°. The transducer was placed in the third or fourth intercostal space and the measure-ment was done distal to the tip of the mitral leaflets for five consecutive cycles. The interventricular septum thickness, posterior wall thickness, and LV internal dimensions in diastole were measured at the peak of the QRS complex on a simultane-ously recorded electrocardiogram according to the Penn convention.12 LVM was calculated using the Devereux formula divided by body surface area in square meters to obtain LVMI.12 LVH was defined as an LVMI >125 g/m2 because of the well docu-mented prognostic value of such a limit in hyperten-sive patients.9 RWT was calculated by two posterior wall thicknesses divided by LV internal dimensions in diastole. Patients were classified into four groups according to the baseline values of RWT and LVMI following Ganau’s criteria.4 A partition value >0.45 for RWT was used to identify the presence of con-centric hypertrophy or, if LVMI was normal, to define concentric LV remodeling. All Echos were recorded and readings were done by two trained sonographers who had no knowledge of the sub-jects’ characteristics. The intra-observer variability of LVMI, assessed as the difference between two measurements of the same registration, was <1%. The inter-observer variability was 6%–8%.

Statistical AnalysisValues are expressed as mean ± SD. Data were ana-lyzed by two-way analysis of variance. Differences in mean values were evaluated by the Student t test. Comparisons of percentages were made using the chi-square test. A probability value of p<0.05 was considered statistically significant

RESULTSThe mean age of the patients was 42±15 years; 71% were men. The duration of hypertension was

Table I. Patient Characteristics at Baseline and After 1 Year of Follow-Up

VARIABLE BASELINE 1 YEAR*Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 158±17 137±15**Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) 96±12 83±10**Heart rate (bpm) 77±13 70±12**Body mass index (kg/m2) 26±3 26±3Urinary Na+ excretion (mmol/24 h) 159±75 159±70

Values are means ± SD of data collected before and after a 1-year follow-up period in 107 hypertensive subjects; *interim blood pressures are not shown; **p<0.001 compared to baseline



7±2 years. BP averaged 147±12/92±10 mm Hg on therapy before the washout period and 158±17/96±12 mm Hg at the completion of the 6-week washout period (p<0.01). Heart rate was 77±13 beats per min-ute (Table I). Neither body mass index nor 24-hour urinary sodium excretion was above normal for the Spanish population. Twelve months of therapy was associated with significant reductions in BP and heart rate, but no significant changes in body mass index or urinary sodium excretion (Table I).

The Echo results in the whole group at baseline and after 1 year of treatment are documented in Table II. Significant decreases of LV wall thickness and LVMI were found after 1 year of antihyperten-sive treatment. RWT also decreased significantly. However, only a small percentage of patients attained normal LV geometry (from 27% to 36%, p>0.05) after 1 year of treatment.

The evolution of LV geometry in the 107 essen-tial hypertensives is shown in Table III. Twenty-five of 29 patients with normal LVM at the beginning of the study had normal LVM after 1 year of treatment. Three patients developed concentric

remodeling, while concentric hypertrophy was detected at the end of the study period in one subject. Three of 18 patients with Echo evidence of concentric remodeling at baseline normalized their LVM at the end of the 12-month follow-up period, whereas eight continued to show Echo evi-dence of concentric remodeling. In addition, one subject developed eccentric hypertrophy and six had concentric hypertrophy. LV was normalized in only eight of 26 patients with eccentric hypertro-phy at baseline, whereas at the end of the study, two patients showed Echo signs of concentric remodeling, eight others demonstrated concentric hypertrophy, and eight remained with eccentric hypertrophy. Finally, LVM was normalized in three out of 34 patients with concentric LVH at baseline, whereas eight had concentric remodeling, nine showed eccentric LVH, and in 14 patients, concen-tric LVH was still found after 1 year of treatment.

Antihypertensive therapy, which decreased BP significantly in 107 patients during a 12-month period, was associated with an improvement in the LVM geometry in 31% of the treated subjects,

Table II. Left Ventricular Dimensions and Left Ventricular Geometry by Two-Dimensional Guided M-Mode Echocardiography at Baseline and After 1-Year Follow-Up Period

VARIABLE BASELINE ONE YEARLeft ventricular function indices

Interventricular septum (mm) 12.2±2.4 11.3±1.4*Posterior wall thickness (mm) 10.9±1.6 10.2±1.8*Left ventricular internal diastolic diameter (mm) 47±5 47±4Relative wall thickness (mm) 0.47±0.09 0.45±0.07 *Left ventricular mass index (g/m2) 129±36 116±27*

Left ventricular geometric patternsNormal (n [%]) 29 (27) 39 (36)Concentric remodeling (n [%]) 18 (17) 21 (20)Eccentric left ventricular hypertrophy (n [%]) 26 (24) 18 (17)Concentric left ventricular hypertrophy (n [%]) 34 (32) 29 (27)

Data are mean ± 1 SD of echocardiographic data and number of patients and percentage of the studied population obtained in 107 hypertensive patients; *p<0.001 compared with baseline

Table III. Evolution of Left Ventricular Geometric Patterns After 1 Year of Treatment

1 YEARBASELINE (N [%]) NORMAL LV (N)

CONCENTRIC REMODELING (N) ECCENTRIC LVH (N) CONCENTRIC LVH (N)

Normal LV 29 (27) 25 3 0 1Concentric R 18 (17) 3 8 1 6Eccentric LVH 26 (24) 8 2 8 8Concentric LVH 34 (32) 3 8 9 14BP <140/90

mm Hg (n [%])22 (56) 11 (52) 4 (22) 12 (41)

LV=left ventricle; LVH=left ventricular hypertrophy; R=remodeling; BP=blood pressure



whereas it had no effect on 51%. LV geometry worsened in 18% of the subjects included in the study. Table III also shows the percentage of the patients with optimal control of BP (systolic and diastolic pressure <140 mm Hg and <90 mm Hg, respectively) at the end of the follow-up, accord-ing to their final LV geometry. BP control was not as good in the groups with either concentric or eccentric LVH as in the group with normal LVM (p<0.05). At the end of the follow-up period, among the 49 well-controlled subjects, only 16 patients (33%) showed LVH by Echo measures. Among the 58 uncontrolled patients, the preva-lence of LVH after 1 year of treatment was 40% (23 patients).

DISCUSSIONClinical trials conducted in thousands of hyper-tensive patients have demonstrated an incremental benefit of drug therapy on the reversal of surrogate end points such as proteinuria and cardiac remodel-ing. Several epidemiologic and observational stud-ies have reported that reversal of cardiac hypertro-phy is a predictor of reduced morbidity and stroke mortality. Although a majority of published studies have reported the effects of antihypertensive drugs on LVM expressed as the reduction of LVMI from baseline, few studies have reported the percentage of patients who normalize their LVM with antihy-pertensive treatment. The present study confirms that antihypertensive therapy is effective enough to reduce BP in a majority of hypertensive subjects during a 1-year treatment period and is associated with significant reductions in LVMI. However, a detailed analysis of the changes in LV geometry showed that the percentage of patients with nor-mal LV geometry was substantially unchanged 12 months after initiation of antihypertensive therapy. Our data showed that LVM was normalized in only 14 patients with pathologic LV geometry at base-line. And, because four patients with normal LVM at baseline developed either concentric remodeling or concentric LVH during the follow-up period, the percentage of patients with normal LV geometry 1 year after initiation of therapy did not change significantly. The failure of antihypertensive ther-apy to control BP may not entirely explain these findings since, in our study, 46% of the patients enrolled in the protocol had their BP controlled below 140/90 mm Hg. A limitation of this observa-tion is that interim BPs were not known.

LVH in essential hypertensives is associated with an increased risk of CV events, and its reduc-tion is associated with a decrease of major CV

complications.7–9 LV remodeling is associated with an increase in CV risk and hypertension-related clinical events.7 In a 4-year study, Yurenev et al.7 reported that the frequency of CV complications in patients with no changes in LVM was significantly higher than in the 230 patients in whom LVM decreased by an average of 30 g. In a study by Muiesan et al.,8 151 hypertensive patients were studied before and after an average of 10 years of follow-up. The rate of CV events was higher in sub-jects showing no evidence of LVH regression when compared with those maintaining normal LVM. In their study, 66 out of the 151 patients (44%) had LVH at baseline, and after the 10-year follow-up, LVH was still present in 27% of the subjects.

In a more definitive study, Verdecchia et al.9 found a prevalence of LVH (LVMI >125 g/m2) of 26% among 430 essential hypertensives. After a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, 54% out of the 112 patients with LVH still had an enlarged LV. The rate of CV events was significantly lower in the group of patients with regression of LVH (LVMI <125 g/m2) than in those whose LVMI remained above 125 g/m2. In contrast, Cipriano et al.13 found no differences between the incidence of CV complications and LVH regression during a 7.4-year follow-up period, in part because of the low number of CV events recorded in the study. Although not statistically significant, Cipriano et al.13 reported a tendency for increased CV events in patients with LVMI >125 g/m2.

Finally, Koren et al.14 found a prevalence of LVH of 22% among 172 essential hypertensives. After a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, 16 of 38 patients with LVH had a reduction of LVM to normal lev-els, but 20 of 134 patients with an initially normal LVM developed LVH. However, greater BP reduc-tion between baseline and follow-up was observed in patients whose LVM either did not change or was decreased when compared with those with an increased LVM (–7.7 mm Hg vs. –0.9 mm Hg; –5.3 mm Hg vs. –1.5 mm Hg). The rate of CV events was significantly lower in the patients with no evidence of LVH on follow-up Echo (9.2% vs. 28.6%; p<0.004). While these studies collectively suggest a benefit of antihypertensive therapy on reversing LV remodeling, the benefit is not uni-versal since, in most of the studies, LVH was not changed. However, as in our study, interim BP con-trol was not always established. It is conceivable that some patients whose BP was <140/90 mm Hg at the end of a study had remained hypertensive for a large part of the follow-up period. This interpretation agrees with the conclusions obtained



by Verdecchia et al.,9 who showed no changes in LVH in 14% of the subjects studied; Cipriano et al.13 (38%); Muiesan et al.8 (27%); and those investigated by Koren et al. (58%).14

In the evaluation of whether any one particular class of antihypertensive medication is better than any other in preventing CV events, the Losartan Intervention for End-Point Reduction (LIFE)15 study suggested that the choice of BP-lowering drugs mat-ters since patients randomized to a losartan-based regimen had fewer strokes than those assigned to an atenolol-based regimen. In this large study, the effects of the therapies on LVH (assessed by electro-cardiography) showed that although both therapies were equivalent in their degree of BP control, regres-sion of LVH was significantly better in subjects randomized to losartan. In the LIFE study, eccentric and concentric hypertrophy were the most common abnormal geometric patterns, while fewer than 20% had normal LV geometry.16,17 Twelve months into the study, the decrease of LVMI in the LIFE study was 14 g/m2 (compared with 13 g/m2 in our study). A reduction in both septal and posterior wall thick-ness associated with small changes in LV internal dimension accounted for the decrease in LVMI in both the data reported in the LIFE study16,17 and in the present study. While the data obtained in the LIFE study do not contradict our findings, it is important to note that the Echo criteria used in the LIFE study to define both LVH and RWT were different than those employed in this study (>104 g/m2 in women and >116 g/m2 in men for LVH and >0.430 for RWT).

In our study, 60 out of 107 hypertensives (56%) had LVH at baseline and 18 patients had concen-tric remodeling. At the end of the 1-year follow-up, 47 patients (44%) still had LVH and 21 exhibited concentric remodeling, a situation clearly associ-ated with an increase of CV risk.3,18 Thus, despite a significant reduction of LVMI after 1 year of treatment, there were a number of patients with an increased risk due to the LV geometric pattern. We found that 51% of the patients enrolled in our study did not modify their LVM pattern and 31% showed an improvement in LVM profile, whereas 18% had an unfavorable evolution of LVM.

We do not know why antihypertensive treat-ment did not produce regression of LVH in all hypertensive patients. Although LVM is associ-ated with a load-dependent effect, the preva-lence of LVH in patients achieving BP control (<140 and <90 mm Hg) was lower (33%), although not statistically significant in difference from those in patients with unsatisfactory BP control. These

data suggest that better BP control does reduce LVH. Similar results were reported by Cuspidi et al.19 in 700 patients treated and followed for at least 6 months. In this study, the prevalence of LVH in well-controlled patients was 15% com-pared with 33% in patients with BP levels >140/90 mm Hg. In keeping with other findings, our study showed that BP control was worse in patients with LVH compared with those presenting with a nor-mal LVM. These data indicate that LV enlargement is a manifestation of poor BP control.20

CONCLUSIONSOur results confirm that antihypertensive treat-ment reduces LVMI, although LVH or concentric remodeling was still present in a significant num-ber of our patients at the end of the follow-up period. Because the rate of major CV complica-tions of hypertension is higher in patients who do not achieve regression of LVH, these patients should be considered as a subgroup at high risk and should be treated more aggressively to obtain a better control of BP. Further studies with careful interim BP determinations aimed to clarify why antihypertensive treatments do not achieve regres-sion of LVM in a significant number of hyperten-sive patients are needed.

REFERENCES 1 Casale PN, Devereux RB, Milner M, et al. Value of echo-

cardiography measurement of left ventricular mass in pre-dicting cardiovascular morbid events in hypertensive men. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:173–178.

2 Schillaci G, Verdecchia P, Porcellati C, et al. Continuous rela-tion between left ventricular mass and cardiovascular risk in essential hypertension. Hypertension. 2000;35:580–586.

3 Koren MJ, Devereux RB, Casale PN, et al. Relation of left ventricular mass and geometry to morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated essential hypertension. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:345–352.

4 Ganau A, Devereux RB, Roman MJ, et al. Patterns of left ventricular hypertrophy and geometric remodeling in essen-tial hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:1550–1558.

5 Shigematsu Y, Hamada M, Mukai M, et al. Clinical evi-dence for an association between left ventricular geometric adaptation and extracardiac target organ damage in essen-tial hypertension. J Hypertens. 1995;13:155–160.

6 Luque-Otero M, Martell N, Aubele AL, et al. Volume overload, atrial natriuretic peptide and left ventricular hypertrophy. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997;432:103–109.

7 Yurenev AP, Dyakonova HG, Novikov ID, et al. Management of essential hypertension in patients with dif-ferent degrees of left ventricular hypertrophy. Multicenter trial. Am J Hypertens. 1992;5:182S–189S.

8 Muiesan ML, Salvetti M, Rizzoni D, et al. Association of change in left ventricular mass with prognosis during long-term antihypertensive treatment. J Hypertens. 1995;13:1091–1095.

9 Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, et al. Prognostic significance of serial changes in left ventricular mass in essential hypertension. Circulation. 1998;97:48–54.

10 Neaton JD, Grimm RH, Prineas RJ, et al. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study. Final results. Treatment



of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group. JAMA. 1993;270:713–724.

11 Schmieder RE, Schlaich MP, Klingbeil A, et al. Reversal of left ventricular hypertrophy in essential hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized double-blind studies. An update including studies until the end of December 1996. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1998;13:564–569.

12 Devereux RB, Reichek W. Echocardiographic determina-tion of left ventricular mass in man: anatomic validation of the method. Circulation. 1977;55:613–618.

13 Cipriano C, Gosse P, Bemurat L, et al. Prognostic value of left ventricular mass and its evolution during treatment in the Bordeaux cohort of hypertensive patients. Am J Hypertens. 2001;14:524–529.

14 Koren MJ, Ulin RJ, Koren AT, et al. Left ventricular mass change during treatment and outcome in patients with essen-tial hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15:1021–1028.

15 Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a ran-

domised trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002;359:995–1003. 16 Wiinberg N, Bang LE, Wachtell K, et al. 24-h Ambulatory

blood pressure in patients with ECG-determined left ven-tricular hypertrophy: left ventricular geometry and urinary albumin excretion—a LIFE substudy. J Hum Hypertens. 2004;18:391–396.

17 Devereux RB, Palmieri V, Liu JE, et al. Progressive hyper-trophy regression with sustained pressure reduction in hypertension: the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction study. J Hypertens. 2002;20:1445–1450.

18 Verdecchia P, Schillaci G, Borgioni C, et al. Adverse prog-nostic significance of concentric remodeling of the left ven-tricle in hypertensive subjects with normal left ventricular mass. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:871–878.

19 Cuspidi C, Lonati L, Sampieri L, et al. Blood pressure control in a hypertension hospital clinic. J Hypertens. 1999;17:835–842.

20 Brown MJ, Castaigne A, de Leeuw PW, et al. Influence of diabetes and type of hypertension on response to antihyper-tensive treatment. Hypertension. 2000;35:1038–1042.


left ventricular geometric patterns after 1 year of antihypertensive treatment

Documents