L eft ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is generally considered to be an adaptive response that allows for normal ejection fraction despite abnormal pressure and/or volume load. 1 However, this adaptation is associated with increased cardiac morbidity and mortality, including acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, arrhythmia, and stroke. [2][3][4] Insight into the prevalence and consequences of LVH and response to treatment was made possible by the advent of echocardiography, 5 which has been used to measure left ventricular mass for the past 3 decades 6 in cross-sectional and epidemiological studies and serially in clinical trials. 7 Cardiac MRI is accepted as a more precise means to measure LV mass 8,9 and is being used in large-scale clinical and epidemiological studies. 10,11 The article by Khouri et al in this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging 12 reflects this maturation of cardiac MRI; these authors used MRI-derived mass and volume to refine the paradigm of LV hypertrophic response in a large (2803 subjects) cross-sectional study of participants in the Dallas Heart Study.
Article see p 164To understand the importance of this work, some context should be provided. Hypertrophy, defined as an increase in LV mass in relation to body size (ie, high LV mass index), is produced by an increase in chamber size, an increase in wall thickness, or both. For decades, concentric hypertrophy was considered the appropriate, even universal, response to a pressure load, as the heart adapted to maintain normal stroke volume despite high systolic pressure. 13 In 1992, Ganau et al 13 proposed a simple quantitative classification paradigm based on their study of 165 untreated hypertensive patients and 125 matched control subjects, and, importantly, established partition values for these geometric categories ( Figure). Categorization was based on the presence of increased LV mass index (LVH: yes/no) and the ratio of LV wall thickness to LV chamber size-the relative wall thickness (RWT). If RWT was high, the term concentric was applied; if not, the term eccentric was used. 14 Despite the conventional wisdom that pressure overload results in an abnormally high absolute or RWT, the majority of the hypertensive patients had neither hypertrophy nor concentric geometry. Another surprising finding was that eccentric LVH was 3 times more common than concentric LVH. Finally, an intriguing new phenotype was described-concentric remodeling-comprising high RWT without an absolute increase in mass index.The paradigm developed by Ganau has proven to be robust and conceptually appealing as evidenced by its wide use in hypertensive heart disease and applications to other adult and pediatric conditions, including obesity, 15 metabolic abnormalities, 16,17 storage disorders, 18 valvular disease, 19 renal insufficiency, 20,21 respiratory disease, 22 and infectious diseases. 23 There has been investigation into the relationship between geometry and outcome 24 -26 and studies of the physiology of concentric remodeling, which has been sh...