AJP - Heart Journal of Neurophysiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 274: H701-H708, 1998;
0363-6135/98 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Batterham, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by George, K. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Batterham, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by George, K. P.
Vol. 274, Issue 2, H701-H708, February 1998

MODELING IN PHYSIOLOGY
Modeling the influence of body size and composition on M-mode echocardiographic dimensions

Alan M. Batterham and Keith P. George

Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Crewe and Alsager Faculty, Alsager, Cheshire ST7 2HL, United Kingdom

The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal index for normalizing left ventricular (LV) echocardiographic dimensions for differences in body size. M-mode echocardiograms defined LV internal dimension at end diastole (LVIDD) and LV wall thickness (LVWT) in 107 adults (59 male, 48 female). Allometric relations were assessed between cardiac dimensions (Y) and body size variables (X) of fat-free mass (FFM), height (H), body surface area (BSA), and fat mass (FM). Further to confirmation of homogeneity of regression slopes, size exponents common to both genders were fitted by a log-linear model: ln Y = ln a + c · gender + b · ln X, where a is the proportionality coefficient, b is the size exponent, and c is the gender coefficient. For LVIDD, mean body size exponents (95% confidence interval) were FFM0.35 (0.22-0.47), H0.68 (0.32-1.03), and BSA0.44 (0.26-0.62). For LVWT, the derived exponents were FFM0.43 (0.20-0.65), H0.65 (0-1.3), and BSA0.56 (0.23-0.89). Body fatness (expressed by FM) had no influence on LV dimensions, with exponents not different from zero (P > 0.05). The root-mean-squares error from the separate regression models indicated that the FFM index was the optimal solution. Indexation of LV dimensions by H was associated with the greatest error. Because the 95% confidence interval for the FFM exponents included 0.33, we recommend that linear LV dimensions be indexed by the cube root of FFM. In the absence of FFM data, the root of BSA was found to be the best surrogate index.

allometric relations; heart size; log-linear models


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
P. E. Gates, K. P. George, and I. G. Campbell
Concentric adaptation of the left ventricle in response to controlled upper body exercise training
J Appl Physiol, February 1, 2003; 94(2): 549 - 554.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online