0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York), and a

2-sided probability

0 (IBM Corp, Armonk, New York), and a

2-sided probability value of <0.05 was considered to be significant. The Tayside Research and Ethics Doxorubicin supplier Committee approved the research protocol, and all study participants provided written informed consent. The baseline characteristics of all 50 patients (mean age 64 years, 64% male) are shown in Online Tables 1 and 2. The primary risk factor was hypertension in 43 of 50 (86%) of patients, whereas 31 of 50 (62%) had a history of dyslipidemia. On average all patients had received treatment for their primary risk factor for greater than 3 years at the time of recruitment and were clinically stable with no overt cardiac symptoms. The majority of the patients were on antihypertensive therapy and greater than two-thirds (39 of 50) received either an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor

blocker (ARB). Baseline BP assessment by ambulatory BP recording revealed good BP control (mean BP 119/72 mm Hg), whereas 56% (28 of 50) of the study patients also received a statin. Online Table 2 also shows that the 50 patients without target organ damage who received a CMR were virtually identical to the 148 patients in our index study who also had no target organ damage at baseline and did not undergo CMR at follow-up (1). Fifty patients completed the follow-up CMR scan, and mean follow-up was 36.3 ± 0.9 months. The average LVM at baseline was 105 ± 24 g and 55 ± 9 g/m2 when indexed to body surface area. At follow-up, LVM measured lower than baseline (mean Δ –4.9 ± 2.8 g) in 52% (26 of 50), whereas Selleckchem ZD6474 an increase (mean Δ 4.7 ± 3.5 g) in LVM was seen in 48% (24 of 50) patients. Clinical characteristics of patients with a reduction and an increase in LVM are shown in Table 1, and the change in LV data on CMR are summarized in Table 2. Not surprisingly, LV filling (LV end-diastolic volume) was reduced in those whose LVM increased with time. No significant differences were noticed in demographics and prevalence of underlying primary risk factor(s) between the 2 groups except that the patients in whom

an increase in LVM was observed were significantly more likely to be active smokers (41% vs. 12%, p = 0.02) or have higher cholesterol levels (5.5 ± 0.8 vs. Dichloromethane dehalogenase 4.5 ± 1.0, p < 0.01). No significant differences were noticed in baseline BP as assessed by 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, underlying renal function, or baseline pharmacotherapy, and baseline LVM was also similar in both groups at baseline (Table 1). The baseline diastolic parameters on 2-dimensional echocardiography, including the ratio of the early diastolic transmitral flow velocity (E) to the mitral annular velocity (e′), or transmitral E/e′, were not statistically different between those with or without a future rise in LVM. Both BNP (mean BNP 21 vs. 7.9 pg/ml) and hs-TnT (mean hs-TnT 6.9 vs. 4.9 ng/l) levels at baseline were significantly higher in patients whose LVM increased with time (Table 1).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>