Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: JACC Heart Fail. 2015 May 14;3(6):445–455. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2014.12.018

Table 5.

Risk of Incident HF with reduced EF, by LVH and change in biomarker levels (N=1474)

Hazard Ratios (95% CI)
LVH by Echo Increase in
NT-proBNP
% of LVH
subgroup
Baseline-
adjusted
Risk-factor
adjusted
None No 1046 (81.7%) 1.0 1.0
Yes 235 (18.3%) 1.17 (0.60, 2.29) 1.14 (0.55, 2.35)
Yes No 129 (66.8%) 2.08 (1.07, 4.06) 1.99 (0.97, 4.08)
Yes 64 (33.2%) 4.77 (2.36, 9.77) 3.46 (1.56, 7.65)
LVH by Echo Increase in
hs cTnT
% of LVH
subgroup
Baseline-
adjusted
Risk-factor
adjusted
None No 1062 (82.9%) 1.0 1.0
Yes 219 (17.1%) 2.65 (1.45, 4.86) 2.48 (1.29, 4.77)
Yes No 144 (74.6%) 2.87 (1.53, 5.39) 2.21 (1.08, 4.54)
Yes 49 (25.4%) 6.94 (3.22, 14.96) 6.95 (3.07, 15.72)

Cell values are hazard ratios (95% CI) from Cox proportional hazards models. Hazard ratios adjusted for: baseline biomarker level, age, race, gender, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease, body mass index, eGFR<60 cc/min/1.73m2, relative wall thickness and LVEF<45%.

Interaction between LVH and Change in NT-proBNP: p=0.5

Interaction between LVH and Change in hs-cTnT: p=0.7