This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lip, G. Y.H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lip, G. Y.H.

(Circulation. 2001;104:1582.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Regression of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Improved Prognosis

Some HOPE Now...or Hype?

Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD

From the University Department of Medicine, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK.

Correspondence to Professor G.Y.H. Lip, University Department of Medicine, City Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH, UK. E-mail g.y.h.lip@bham.ac.uk

Key Words: Editorials • prognosis • hypertrophy • trials • hypertension

It has been well recognized that the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is an adverse feature in hypertension, with such patients having a substantially higher risk of cardiovascular events, including mortality and morbidity from heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and sudden death.¹ Indeed, LVH is probably the most visible manifestation of hypertensive target organ damage.

See p 1615

For many years, clinicians have been interested in finding the best drugs to regress LVH or improve other surrogate markers of hypertensive target organ damage (such as microproteinuria or endothelial dysfunction), without knowing whether or not such actions actually did any good in the long term. Furthermore, the scientific community has long been provided with data from LVH regression studies that have generally been suboptimal in design, with small numbers of subjects, unrepresentative populations, short study duration, lack of comparison between agents, unblinded echocardiographic readings, and inappropriate statistical methods.² Using the criteria proposed by Devereaux and Dahlof,² future studies that avoid the above limitations should be related to the question(s) that need to be answered. These could be categorized as follows: (1) relatively small studies (n=40 to 60) to investigate pathophysiology in detail or explore the effects of new agents; (2) medium-sized ones (n=300 to 400; duration 1 year) to determine definitively whether interagent differences in the reduction of left ventricular mass exist; and (3) large, long-term trials (n>1200; duration 4 years) to determine whether LVH reversal improves prognosis, over and above blood pressure reduction and the type of treatment used.

One . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				O. H. Cingolani, X.-P. Yang, Y.-H. Liu, M. Villanueva, N.-E. Rhaleb, and O. A. Carretero Reduction of Cardiac Fibrosis Decreases Systolic Performance Without Affecting Diastolic Function in Hypertensive Rats Hypertension, May 1, 2004; 43(5): 1067 - 1073. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Swan, J. Mathew, P. Sleight, E. Lonn, D. Johnstone, J. Pogue, Q. Yi, J. Bosch, B. Sussex, J. Probstfield, et al. A Pill for Every Ill * Response Circulation, April 9, 2002; 105 (14): e82 - e82. [Full Text] [PDF]