Inadequate diagnosis and therapy of arterial hypertension as causes of left ventricular hypertrophy in uremic dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is highly prevalent in the dialyzed population, possibly because of inadequate diagnosis and therapy of arterial hypertension. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the adequacy of our approach in correctly identifying and treating arterial hypertension in our dialysis center. METHODS: Fifty-five dialyzed uremics were studied by continuous ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring, which started before a single hemodialysis (HD) session, continued for 24 hours after HD ended, and was repeated for 15 minutes before the beginning of the next HD. Clinical pre-HD and post-HD routine BP measurements taken the month preceding BP monitoring were retrieved, and echocardiography was performed. RESULTS: LVH was present in 46 out of 55 patients, and clinical pre-HD arterial hypertension was present in 36 out of 55. There were discrepancies between clinical and monitored BPs, mostly concerning diastolic pre-HD BP since BP readings were lower than monitored BP records (P < 0.0002). Although both clinical and monitored BPs bore strong direct correlations with the left ventricular mass (LVM), the closest correlations were those for monitored BP. Four groups of patients were identified by BP monitoring: group A (N = 14), with persistently normal BP, and group D (N = 13), with persistently supranormal BP levels. There were also two other groups (group B, N = 19; and group C, N = 9), whose BP values were high before HD, normalized after HD, and then increased again either soon after HD (group C) or later on following HD (group B). Monthly averaged clinical pre-HD mean BP values differed significantly among the four groups [91 +/- 10 (SD) mm Hg in group A, 101 +/- 7 in group B, 106 +/- 6 in group C, and 106 +/- 7 in group D; P < 0.0001, analysis of variance], as did their corresponding LVMs [132 +/- 27 g/m2 body surface area (BSA), 156 +/- 26, 201 +/- 51, and 200 +/- 36; P < 0.0001]. There were also differences in dialytic age, which was significantly longer in group A patients (109 +/- 54 months), who also tended to have higher, although not significantly higher, Kt/V(urea) values. No differences, however, were detected among the groups as far as type, dosages, and number of antihypertensive drugs given to each individual patient. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of LVH in the dialysis population might be the result of inadequate diagnosis and therapy of arterial hypertension. Arterial hypertension, in fact, was insufficiently treated in our dialysis center, since patients with varying degrees of severity of both arterial hypertension and LVH were kept on antihypertensive therapy of similar strength. Undertreatment may have resulted from not having recognized and/or from having underestimated the severity of arterial hypertension since some clinical BPs were measured incorrectly. Reluctance to use more aggressive antihypertensive therapy might also result from the deceptive feeling of "normalized" BP that one has following volume unloading with dialysis. This causes both the BP to run out of control between dialyses and LVH to worsen.

[Dimensions of the proximal thoracic aorta from childhood to adult age: reference values for two-dimensional echocardiography. Ligurian Group of SIEC (Italian Society of Echocardiography)]. / Dimensioni della radice aortica nell'infanzia e nell'età adulta: limiti di riferimento per l'ecocardiografia bidimensionale. Gruppo Ligure Della SIEC.

BACKGROUND: Two-dimensional echocardiography (2-DE) represents the main tool for detecting and monitoring abnormalities of proximal thoracic aorta. However, previous studies performed to assess the reference values of aortic diameters using this technique are few and, often, involve a small number of subjects. Furthermore, such a study has not been performed on an Italian population. METHODS: To assess the reference values and the growth curves of the dimensions of the proximal thoracic aorta in an Italian population, we measured aortic diameters at the level of the anulus, of the sinuses of Valsalva and of the supraaortic ridge, by using 2-DE, in 134 healthy volunteers (78 males, 56 females), aged 35 +/- 16 years (range 5-76). Sex, age, weight, height, body surface area (BSA), heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure were analyzed as determinants of proximal thoracic aorta diameters. In addition, to compare the specificity of the reference values, we have obtained with those provided by literature, we studied another independent group of 23 healthy volunteers, aged 32 +/- 15 years (range 11-65). RESULTS: In our study population, mean values and range of aortic 2-DE diameters were 2.1 +/- 0.3 cm (range 1.3-2.9) at the level of the anulus, 2.6 +/- 0.4 cm (range 1.7-3.7) at the level of the sinuses of Valsalva and 2.4 +/- 0.4 cm (range 1.5-3.4) at the level of the supraaortic ridge. At multivariate regression analysis, sex and age emerged as the only independent determinants of the aortic root diameters (r2 = 0.35, 0.43, and 0.52 for aortic diameter at the level of anulus, sinuses of Valsalva, and supraaortic ridge, respectively). On average, aortic root dimensions at the level of the anulus, of the sinuses of Valsalva and of the supraaortic ridge in females were 1.5 mm, 2.8 mm, and 1 mm, respectively, smaller than those of males of comparable age, height and weight. The growth curves showed that proximal thoracic aorta increases in size in the first 30 years of life; thereafter, it remains relatively constant in size up to 55 years, after which the proximal thoracic aorta tends to enlarge gradually. The ratios of sinuses of Valsalva to annular diameter and of supraaortic ridge to annular diameter (1.27 +/- 0.17 and 1.17 +/- 0.16, respectively) were found to be indexes of aortic root dimension independent of sex and age. No correlation was found between aortic root dimensions and systolic blood pressure. M-mode echocardiography systematically overestimated 2-DE aortic diameters at the level of the anulus, as well as at the level of the sinuses of Valsalva and of the supraaortic ridge (+0.8 +/- 0.04 cm, +0.2 +/- 0.04 cm, and +0.4 +/- 0.04 cm, respectively, p < 0.0001 for all). In the control population, our reference values demonstrated a specificity significantly higher than that of the main reference values reported in literature (97 +/- 2% versus 62 +/- 4%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a prospectic, systematic and detailed analysis of 2-DE proximal thoracic aorta diameters in a wide group of healthy Italian subjects. Our data show that: 1) 2-DE aortic root dimensions are influenced by sex and age but not by body size or blood pressure; 2) the ratios of sinuses of Valsalva to annular diameter and of supraaortic ridge to annular diameter are indexes of aortic root dimension which are independent of age and sex; 3) M-mode diameter systematically overestimates 2-DE diameters of the aortic root; and 4) Italian population based reference values showed higher specificity than values provided by literature.

[The methods of using the echocardiogram in outpatients. The role of the cardiologist for more appropriate use of the procedure. The Ligurian Group of the Italian Society of Cardiovascular Echocardiography]. / Modalità di utilizzazione dell'ecocardiogramma in pazienti ambulatoriali. Ruolo del cardiologo per l'appropriatezza della prescrizione. Gruppo Ligure della Società Italiana di Ecografia Cardiovascolare.

Concerns about the increasing medical care costs are causing the medical community to focus its attention on the appropriate of diagnostic tests such as echocardiography. Prerequisite to a better utilization of the limited economic resources assigned to our health care system is an analysis of how, why, and with which results diagnostic tests with a widespread use and relevant cost, like echocardiography, are requested. During the last 2 weeks of September 1994, a transversal, observational study was carried out at 13 hospital echocardiographic laboratories. Ordering physician characteristics, reasons for ordering the test, cardiological diagnostic tests previously performed and their relationship with the test results, were evaluated with a questionnaire completed by the physician who performed the test, in all the out-patients undergoing echocardiogram in that fortnight. Five hundred and sixteen consecutive questionnaires were successfully completed. Fourty-five percent of the echocardiograms were ordered by cardiologists, 35% by general practitioners, 10% by internists, and 10% by other specialists. Hypertension (16.4%) and ischemic heart disease (14.8%) were the most common indications for the test, followed by palpitations or arrhythmias (7.5%), mitral valve prolapse or mitral valve disease (7.3%), chest pain or angina pectoris (6.3%), cardiac murmur (5.5%), dyspnea or heart failure (5.2%), aortic valve disease (5%), prosthetic heart valve evaluation (4.6%), others (27%). Before undergoing the echocardiogram, 433 (84%) patients underwent an electrocardiogram, 242 (47%) a cardiological clinical evaluation, 196 (38%) a chest X-ray, and 191 (37%) had had a previous echocardiogram. The most common echocardiographic diagnosis was normal (29.2%) followed by hypertensive heart disease (16.2%), mitral valve disease (12.3%), aortic valve disease (10.5%), ischemic heart disease (9.3%), cardiomyopathy (4.9%) normal prosthetic heart valve function (4.5%), pericardial effusion (3.8%), others (11.3%). Among the echocardiograms ordered by cardiologists, 21.8% were normal in comparison with 35.4% of those ordered by general practitioners (p < 0.004), 35.3% of those ordered by internists (p = 0.04), 35.3% of those ordered by other specialists (p = 0.04). Among the 284 patients whose echocardiograms were not requested by a cardiologist, only 215 (76%) had undergone an electrocardiogram and only 68 (24%) a clinical evaluation by a cardiologist. In these patients, the frequency of normal echocardiograms was not influenced by having undergone a previous electrocardiogram or a chest X-ray. Conversely, patients in whom the echocardiogram was ordered after a cardiology consult showed a significant lower frequency of normal results compared to patients not evaluated by a cardiologist (23% vs 39%; p < 0.05). More than 50% of the echocardiograms performed in out-patients are ordered by physicians who are not cardiologists. Among these echocardiograms, about 1 out of 3 results normal. This finding suggests an improper use of echocardiogram as a screening tool by non-cardiologists in out-patients. A preceding clinical evaluation by a cardiologist, but not an electrocardiogram or a chest X-ray alone, may determine a more appropriate use of the test being associated with a reduced frequency of normal results.