<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">WJCD</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2164-5329</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/wjcd.2017.74011</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">WJCD-75695</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Comparison of the Performance of Three Commonly Used Electrocardiographic Indexes for the Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Black Hypertensive Patients with Reduced Kidney Function Managed at a Tertiary Healthcare Hospital: A Post-Hoc Analysis
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>F.</surname><given-names>B. Lepira</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>C.</surname><given-names>M. B. Mpembe</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>F.</surname><given-names>I. N. Mbutiwi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>J.</surname><given-names>R. Makulo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>P.</surname><given-names>K. Kayembe</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>F.</surname><given-names>M. Kajingulu</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>E.</surname><given-names>V. Kintoki</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>J.</surname><given-names>R. M’buyamba-Kabangu</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Division of Nephrology, University Hospital of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Kinshasa School of Public Health, Democratic Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Division of Cardiology, University of Kinshasa Hospital, Democratic Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>lepslepira@yahoo.fr(FBL)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>11</day><month>04</month><year>2017</year></pub-date><volume>07</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>105</fpage><lpage>118</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>March</day>	<month>1,</month>	<year>2017</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>Accepted:</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>24,</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>April</day>	<month>27,</month>	<year>2017</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
   
   Background: Reduced kidney function in blacks is associated with an increased frequency of left ventricular hypertrophy. Given the unavailability of echocardiography in most developing countries, the diagnostic performance of current ECG indexes needs to be evaluated. 
   Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of 3 commonly used ECG indexes (Sokolow-Lyon, Cornell voltage and Cornell product) in black hypertensive patients. 
   Methods: Electrocardiography and echocardiography estimated left ventricular mass of 155 consecutive hypertensive patients who participated from January 2012 to January 2013 to an echocardiographic cross-sectional study of left ventricular structure was analyzed to compare Cornell voltage and Cornell product indexes with Sokolow-Lyon voltage index as a reference. Reduced kidney function was defined as eGFR &lt; 60 ml/min/1.730.05 m
   <sup>2</sup>. ROC curves in relation to LVH diagnosis were used to estimate the sensitivities and specificities of each index. P &lt; 0.05 defined the level of the statistical significance. 
   Results: The sensitivity and specificity were 43% and 85%, 23% and 77% and 26% and 77% for Sokolow-Lyon, Cornell voltage and Cornell product indexes, respectively. However, Sokolow-Lyon index (AUC; 95% CI: 0.64; 0.50 - 0.78) showed better performance than Cornell voltage (0.42; 0.25 - 0.59) and Cornell product (0.43; 0.28 - 0.59). Sokolow-Lyon index cut-point ≥ 37 mm corresponded to the highest Youden index (39.4% of sensitivity and 92.3% of specificity). 
   Conclusion: Although the overall performance of the 3 ECG indexes versus echocardiography was low, Sokolow-Lyon index performed better than the two other indexes in diagnosing LVH. 
  
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Performance ECG Indexes</kwd><kwd> Reduced Kidney Function</kwd><kwd> Black Africans</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Hypertensive patients with reduced kidney function (RKF) are at the increased risk for cardiovascular disease [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref2">2</xref>] . Thus, the knowledge and management of factors underlying this increased risk could be of great help in reducing CV risk in hypertensive patients especially those with RKF. Among identified factors, left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is thought to play a central role in the development and progression of CVD [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref3">3</xref>] . LVH has been reported to be associated with cardiac arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, and sudden death [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref4">4</xref>] . Given the prognostic importance of LVH, accurate diagnosis and appropriate management of LVH have become a major component of the care of patients with hypertension [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref3">3</xref>] . However, there is little information on the diagnosis of LVH in black Africans [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>LVH can be detected by chest X radiography, electrocardiography (ECG) and echocardiography, computerized tomography (CT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref5">5</xref>] . However, in daily clinical practice, ECG and echocardiography are the most widely used not only for reasons of availability, but mainly by the prognostic association that clearly predicts the increased CV risk when LVH is found [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref5">5</xref>] . Although echocardiography is the gold standard, the ECG is still the most widely used cost-effective tool and recommended for routine assessment of LVH [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref3">3</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref7">7</xref>] . Despite the low sensitivity of available ECG indexes ranging from 7% to 35% in mild hypertension and 10% to 50% in moderate to severe hypertension [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref8">8</xref>] , ECG is still in use in many parts of the world including Sub-Saharan Africa where echocardiography is not often available [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref9">9</xref>] . The most commonly used ECG indexes for the diagnosis of LVH include Sokolow-Lyon voltage, Cornell voltage and Cornell product indexes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref10">10</xref>] . Given the differences of sensitivity of these different indexes, it appears thus rational to assess and compare them with echocardiography to assess their suitability for routine use for the diagnosis of LVH in hypertensive patients especially those with RKF [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref7">7</xref>] .</p><p>In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the prevalence of hypertension and chronic kidney disease is estimated to be of 30% and 12%, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref14">14</xref>] ; both conditions are associated with LVH [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref16">16</xref>] . However, the accuracy of commonly used ECG indexes relative to echocardiography as the gold standard for the diagnosis of LVH has not yet been evaluated. Therefore, the aim of the present post-hoc analysis was to compare the diagnostic performance of 3 commonly used ECG indexes namely Sokolow-Lyon voltage, Cornell voltage and Cornell product indexes in hypertensive black patients with RKF seen at tertiary level hospital in Kinshasa, the capital City.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Patients and Methods</title><p>To compare 3 ECG indexes (Sokolow-Lyon voltage, Cornell voltage and Cornell product) with echocardiography to assess their suitability for routine use in the diagnosis of LVH, we performed a post-hoc analysis of data from 155 consecutive adult black patients with established hypertension enrolled in an echocardiographic-based cross-sectional study of the relationship between renal function status and LV structure and function carried out at the outpatient cardiology clinic of the University of Kinshasa Hospital from January 2012 to January 2013. The details of the original study have been already described elsewhere [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref15">15</xref>] . In brief, according to American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) recommendations, LV end-diastolic internal diameter (LVIDd), interventricular septum thickness (IVSTd) and that of posterior wall of the LV (LVPWTd) were obtained during diastole, and the LV mass (LVM), in grams, was calculated according to the following formula: LVM = 0.8 &#215; {1.04 [(IVSTd + LVIDd + LVPWTd)<sup>3</sup> − (LVIDd)<sup>3</sup>]} + 0.6 g [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref17">17</xref>] and indexed to body surface area (g/m<sup>2</sup>) in non-obese patients and height in obese ones (g/m<sup>2.7</sup>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref18">18</xref>] . Overweight and obesity were defined as body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 Kg/m<sup>2</sup> and ≥ 30 Kg/m<sup>2</sup>, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref19">19</xref>] . MetS was defined according to harmonized definition [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref20">20</xref>] , Hemoglobin levels &lt; 12 g/dl for men and &lt;11 g/dl for women defined anemia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref21">21</xref>] . Echocardiographic diagnosis of LVH was made when LVM index (LVMI) was &gt;125 g/m<sup>2</sup> in men and &gt;110 g/m<sup>2</sup> in women or &gt;51 g/m<sup>2.7</sup> for both sexes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref22">22</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref23">23</xref>] . From the relative wall thickness (RWT) calculated using the following formula: RWT = 2 &#215; LVPWTd/LVIDd, two geometric patterns defined: concentric and eccentric patterns when RWT was ≥0.42 and &lt;0.42, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref24">24</xref>] . For the purpose of the present post-hoc analysis, patient’s ECG records were analyzed and evaluated for the presence of LVH using 3 ECG indexes: Sokolow-Lyon (SV1 + RV5 or V6 &gt; 35 mm), Cornell voltage (SV3 + RaVL &gt; 20 mm in women or &gt;28 mm in men) and Cornell product (SV3 + RaVL &#215; QRS &gt; 2440 mm) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref27">27</xref>] . RKF was defined as eGFR &lt; 60 ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> using modification of diet in renal disease equation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref28">28</xref>] .</p>Statistical Analysis<p>Continuous variables were expressed as mean &#177; standard deviation (SD) or median (range) as appropriate. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages. Comparison of means or medians was done by student t test or Mann Whitney test, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of each of the 3 indexes were estimated. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated using 2 &#215; 2 tables classifying ECG against echocardiographic LVH as gold standard. The specificity was calculated as true negatives divided by the sum of true negatives and false positives. Similarly, the sensitivity as true positives is divided by the sum of true positives and false negatives. Positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated as true positives divided by the sum of true positives and false positives, and negative predictive value (NPV) as true negatives divided by the sum of true negatives and false negatives. Analysis of the performance of LVM indexers and of sensitivities and specificities of the 3 ECG indexes was made using ROC curves [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref29">29</xref>] . The areas under the 3 ROC curves and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. The comparison of curves was made using the Chi-square statistic test. The reported optimal cut-point corresponded to the highest Youden index (sensitivity + specificity − 1). P value &lt; 0.05 defined the level of statistical significance. The Ethical and Research Committee of the University of Kinshasa School of Medicine approved the study. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package STATA/IC version 14.1 (StataCorp, Texas, USA).</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>General characteristics of the study population as a whole and according to renal function status are summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>. RKF was observed in 74</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Clinical characteristics of the whole study population and according to kidney function status</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >All group n = 155</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >NKF n = 81<sup> </sup></th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RKF n = 74</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gender, % M</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.681</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >F</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age, years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58 &#177; 12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58 &#177; 12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59 &#177; 12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.732</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >DHT, years</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (2 - 13)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (1 - 13)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (4 - 12)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.040</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Smoking, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.470</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Physical activity, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >BMI, Kg/m<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26 &#177; 5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 &#177; 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 &#177; 5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.047</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Obesity, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.002</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >WC, cm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93 &#177; 14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90 &#177; 13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95 &#177; 14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.031</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Central obesity, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.048</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >SBP, mm Hg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >158 &#177; 24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >157 &#177; 24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >159 &#177; 25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.510</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >DBP, mm Hg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93 &#177; 17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94 &#177; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93 &#177; 18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.890</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PP, mm Hg</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65 &#177; 20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63 &#177; 18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68 &#177; 22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.180</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HR, bpm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >84 &#177; 14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83 &#177; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >84 &#177; 14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.600</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >AntiHT regimen, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.530</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Monotherapy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- Bitherapy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >- ≥3 drugs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uncontrolled BP, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.040</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Data are expressed as mean &#177; standard deviation, median (interquartile range) or relative frequency in percent. Abbreviations: RKF &amp; NKF, reduced and relatively normal kidney function M, male F, female DHT, duration of hypertension BMI, body mass index WC, waist circumference SBP, systolic blood pressure DBP, diastolic blood pressure PP, pulse pressure HR, heart rate AntiHT, antihypertensive BP, blood pressure.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Biological characteristics of the whole study population and according to kidney function status</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >All group n = 155</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >NKF<sup> </sup> n = 81</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RKF n = 74</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hb, g/dl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 &#177; 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 &#177; 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 &#177; 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ht, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 &#177; 7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 &#177; 5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 &#177; 7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anemia, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >FPG, mg/dl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92 (82 - 109)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90 (79 - 97)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >101 (86 - 128)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diabetes, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uric acid, mg/dl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4 &#177; 2.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5 &#177; 2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4 &#177; 2.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hyperuricemia, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TC, mg/dl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >188 (160 - 222)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >192 (166 - 224)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >185 (159 - 217)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.358</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LDL-c, mg/dl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >111 (85 - 151)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >116 (88 - 171)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100 (84 - 137)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.660</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HDL-c, mg/dl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44 (35 - 52)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44 (36 - 53)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 (31 - 49)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.160</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TG, mg/dl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96 (76 - 125)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90 (76 - 110)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98 (77 - 128)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.310</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dyslipidemia, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.630</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >MetS, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Creatinine, mg/dl</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.4 (1.0 - 2.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0 (0.9 - 1.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.8 (1.8 - 4.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >MDRD-GFR, ml/min/1.73m<sup>2</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61 &#177; 37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89 &#177; 26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 &#177; 15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dipstick-proteinuria, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >RKF, stages, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Data are expressed as mean &#177; standard deviation, median (interquartilerange) or relative frequency in percent. Abbreviations: RKF &amp; NKF, reduced and relatively normal kidney function Hb, hemoglobin Ht, hematocrit FPG, fasting plasma glucose TC, total cholesterol LDL-c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol HDL-c, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol TG, triglycerides MetS, metabolic syndrome MDRD, modification of diet in renal disease GFR, glomerular filtration rate.</p><p>hypertensive patients (53% females, mean age 59 &#177; 12 years) with 46%, 36% and 18% being at RKF stage 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Compared to patients with normal renal function, those with RKF had in average a longer duration of hypertension [8 (4 - 12) vs. 6 (1 - 13) years; p = 0.040), higher BMI (27 &#177; 5 vs. 25 &#177; 4 Kg/m<sup>2</sup>; p = 0.047) and WC (95 &#177; 14 vs. 90 &#177; 13cm; p = 0.031). Sixty-three percent, 27% and 5% of patients with RKF were receiving one, two and more than two antihypertensive drugs, respectively. Patients with RKF had also a significantly higher proportion (77% vs. 62%; p = 0.040) of subjects with uncontrolled hypertension compared to those with normal renal function. They had in addition significantly higher levels of FPG [101 (86 - 128) vs. 90 (79 - 97) mg/dl; p &lt; 0.001], uric acid (7.4 &#177; 2.8 vs. 5.5 &#177; 2.2 mg/dl; p &lt; 0.001) and lower hemoglobin levels (11 &#177; 2 vs. 13 &#177; 2 g/dl; p &lt; 0.001).</p><p>Cardiovascular risk factors in the study population as a whole and according to renal function status are also depicted in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>. Patients with RKF had a higher proportion of subjects with global obesity (30 vs. 10%; p = 0.002), central obesity (55% vs. 39%; p = 0.048), diabetes (38% vs. 6%; p &lt; 0.001), hyperuricemia (54% vs. 21%; p &lt; 0.001), dipstick-proteinuria (28% vs. 6%; p &lt; 0.001), MetS (62% vs. 31%; p &lt; 0.001) and anemia (54% vs. 24%; p &lt; 0.001).</p><p>The median echocardiographic-LVMI in non-obese and obese patients with RKF was 276 (198 - 348) g/m<sup>2</sup> and 72 (47 - 88) g/m<sup>2.7</sup>, respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>); these values were significantly higher than those observed in patients with normal renal function (p &lt; 0.01, respectively). Echocardiographic-LVH was observed in 92% of patients with RKF with concentric and eccentric patterns in 50% and 42% of them, respectively. However, the differences observed in comparison with patients with normal renal function were not statistically significant.</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Echocardiographic left ventricular mass index in non-obese patients according to kidney function status</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1910638x2.png"/></fig><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> Echocardiographic left ventricular mass index in obese patients according to kidney function status</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1910638x3.png"/></fig><p>Mean ECG-LVM in patients with RKF was 36 &#177; 11 mm, 21 &#177; 8 mm and 2087 &#177; 714 mm∙sec for Sokolow-Lyon, Cornell voltage and Cornell product, respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). The prevalence of ECG-LVH in patients with RKF by voltage criteria was 45%, 22% and 23% for Sokolow-Lyon, Cornell voltage and Cornell product, respectively. However, the differences in prevalence of LVH between patients with and without RKF were not statistically significant.</p><p>The performance of the 3 ECG indexes for the diagnosis of LVH was similar in patients with than without RKF. Sensitivity and specificity were 43% and 85%, 23% and 77% and 26% and 77% for Sokolow-Lyon, Cornell voltage and Cornell product, respectively. However, the PPV of the 3 indexes were relatively high (&gt;90%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><p>ROC curves of the 3 ECG indexes are presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>. The performance of Sokolow-Lyon index for the diagnosis of LVH was low [area under the curve (AUC); 95% CI: 0.64; 0.50 - 0.78] while Cornell voltage (AUC: 0.42; 0.25 - 0.59) and Cornell product (AUC: 0.43; 0.28 - 0.59) showed no diagnostic interest. The optimal cut-point value of Sokolow-Lyon index corresponding to the highest Youden index was ≥37 mm (39.4% of sensitivity and 92.3% of specificity).</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>The main findings of the present post-hoc analysis are as follows. First, the test performance of all the 3 ECG indexes was low. Second, Sokolow-Lyon index per- formed better than the two other indexes for the diagnosis of LVH.</p><p>The poor performance of ECG indexes in detecting LVH has been already reported in African Black hypertensives with and without RKF [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref30">30</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref31">31</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref33">33</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref34">34</xref>] as well as in the general population [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref7">7</xref>] . A similar finding has been also found in hypertensive patients out of Africa [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref35">35</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref36">36</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref39">39</xref>] . The reasons for the different performances of electrocardiographic criteria are not</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Electrocardiographic left ventricular mass and hypertrophy of the whole study population and according to kidney function status</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >ECG index</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >All group n = 155</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >NKF<sup> </sup> n = 81</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RKF n = 74</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LVM</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sokolow-Lyon, mm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34 &#177; 11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 &#177; 11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 &#177; 11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.045</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cornell Voltage, mm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 &#177; 8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 &#177; 8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 &#177; 8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.600</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cornell Product, mm∙sec</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2069 &#177; 722</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2052 &#177; 734</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2087 &#177; 714</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.761</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >LVH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sokolow-Lyon, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.339</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cornell-Voltage, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.651</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cornell product, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.441</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 indexes combined, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.508</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Data are expressed as mean &#177; standard deviation or relative frequency in percent. Abbreviations: RKF &amp; NKF, reduced and relatively normal kidney function disease ECG, electrocardiogram LVM, left ventricular mass LVH, left ventricular hypertrophy.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Performance of 3 ECG criteria of LVH versus echocardiography among the study population and according to kidney function status</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >ECG criteria</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >All group n = 155</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >NKF<sup> </sup> n = 81</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >RKF n = 74</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sokolow-Lyon index</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Se, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.513</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PPV, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >NPV, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.424</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cornell voltage</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Se, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.785</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.111</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PPV, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.298</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >NPV, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.645</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cornell product</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Se, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.566</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.111</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PPV, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.433</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >NPV, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.859</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 indexes combined</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Se, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.496</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sp, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.397</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PPV, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.875</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >NPV, %</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.952</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Abbreviations: RKF &amp; NKF, reduced and normal kidney function disease ECG, electrocardiogram Se, sensitivity Sp, specificity PPV, positive predictive value NPV, negative predictive value.</p><fig id="fig3"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref></label><caption><title> ROC curve of Sokolow-Lyon index, Cornell voltage and Cornell pro- duct for diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/2-1910638x4.png"/></fig><p>clear and understanding reasons for the discrepancies in detection of LVH by ECG versus imaging could help improve the diagnostic ability of ECG [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref41">41</xref>] . These discrepancies are thought to rely upon a number of extracardiac factors such as age, gender, body habitus and cardiac factors such as LVH severity and geometry [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref42">42</xref>] . With reference to cardiac factors, Bacharov et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref41">41</xref>] reported that differences in the prevalence estimates between ECG-based and imaging-based LVH could probably be explained by the complex structural and functional remodeling of the myocardium that occur as a result of hypertrophy. In addition to changes in the size of left ventricle, structural changes at the tissue level including changes of cardiomyocytes, interstitial fibrosis, diminished coronary reserve and myocardial dysfunction [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref41">41</xref>] are common occurrences. These multi-dimension complex changes are not easily captured by a modality that depends on recording electric activity such as ECG. As a result of the complex structural and functional remodeling of myocardium occurring as a result of hypertrophy, the conduction velocity is slowed, and consequently the sequence of ventricular activation is altered [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref41">41</xref>] . Using computer simulations, it has been shown that the mass and shape of the left ventricle in LVH are not the only determinant of QRS voltage, the key feature upon which almost all ECG-LVH criteria relies on [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref41">41</xref>] . Diffuse or regional slowing in conduction velocity changes the sequence of ventricular activation in a way that is consistent with ECG-LVH patterns even in situations when the anatomy of left ventricle is not changed. These findings provide further support that the ECG criteria for LVH do not necessarily mirror changes in LV mass all the time, which explains the too many criteria, none of which provide a high level of diagnostic accuracy. Clearly, the usefulness of ECG-LVH as a tool for prediction of outcomes seems to surpass its value as a tool to diagnose anatomical LVH. Therefore, it may be the time to modify the current or create new ECG-LVH criteria with the main focus being prediction of outcomes rather than the anatomical correlates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref41">41</xref>] .</p><p>In the present post-hoc analysis, Sokolow-Lyon index performed better than the two other comparator indexes. This finding contrasts with the generally accepted better performance of Cornell indexes vs. Sokolow-Lyon index reported by several studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref35">35</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref36">36</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref43">43</xref>] . Noble et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref44">44</xref>] tried to explain the better performance of Cornell-based criteria through vector cardiographic changes induced by LVH. Indeed, the LVM orients the electric forces horizontally corresponding to the RaVL and posteriorily corresponding to the SV3. Furthermore, the V3 lead is closer to the LV and is probably less influenced by variations in the distance between the myocardium and the leads. However, our finding is consistent with the report of a few studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref32">32</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref37">37</xref>] of a better performance of Sokolow-Lyon index vs. Cornell indexes. The exact mechanism underlying the better performance of Sokolow-Lyon index is not clear and could be related to age and BMI of the studied patients as well as the modality of LVM indexation. QRS voltage amplitude depends to both cardiac (electric properties of both the conduction system and the myocardium) and extra-cardiac factors such as age, gender, BMI [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref40">40</xref>] . In this regard, Tsiachris et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref45">45</xref>] reported that in elderly patients the Sokolow-Lyon index was associated with LVH detection when LVM was indexed for height whereas Cornell-based indexes were associated with echocardiographic detection of LVH indexed to BSA. In contrast to the above finding, Cornell voltage in middle-aged subjects was the only ECG index that was associated with LVH detection irrespective of indexation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref46">46</xref>] . Another plausible explanation could be the fact that the evidence indicates that the sensitivity of several ECG criteria decreases from normal-weight to overweight and obesity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref47">47</xref>] . In this regard, a recent study from Italy found that BMI-corrected Sokolow-Lyon voltage and Cornell voltage criteria provided better results for detection of echocardiographic LVH compared with unadjusted parameters [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref47">47</xref>] . LVH- induced conduction system abnormalities could also contribute to the observed better performance of Sokolow-Lyon index in the present post-hoc analysis. Indeed, Burgos et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref48">48</xref>] reported in hypertensive patients that among ECG criteria with the best performance for LVH and complete Left bundle branch block (CLBBB), Sokolow-Lyon index stood out with a better sensitivity and specificity. They concluded that despite the significant decrease in performance with regards to sensitivity and specificity in patients with LVH and CLBBB, Sokolow- Lyon index presented the best performance.</p><p>The interpretation of the findings of the present analysis should consider some limitations. First, it was a post-hoc analysis with a small sample size; se- cond, only a single observer made the diagnosis of echocardiographic LVH; it is well-known that echocardiographic measurements are observer dependent and no agreement test was carried out in the present analysis; third, the original study was a tertiary clinic-based cross-sectional study with selection bias; fourth, echocardiography was used for comparison instead of more accurate tools like computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging; unfortunately, these techniques were not available. However, echocardiography has been reported to have a strong correlation with autopsy findings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.75695-ref17">17</xref>] . Notwithstanding these limitations, the present study is the first one comparing the performance of ECG criteria in relation with echocardiography in our setting with limited resources.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>Although the overall performance of ECG criteria studied was low, Sokolow-Lyon index had a better performance than that of the two others criteria in diagnosing LVH.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The authors gratefully thank the Head and all the staff of the Division of Cardiology of the Department of Internal Medicine of University of Kinshasa Hospital for their invaluable help in the conduct of the original study.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Author’s Contribution</title><p>L. F. B. wrote the protocol, participated in data analysis and wrote the manuscript.</p><p>M. C. M. B. collected data, participated in data analysis and revised the manuscript.</p><p>M. F. I. N. conducted data analysis and revised the manuscript.</p><p>M. J. R. participated in data analysis and revised the manuscript.</p><p>K. P. K. participated in data analysis and revised manuscript.</p><p>K. F. M. revised the manuscript.</p><p>K. E. V. revised the manuscript.</p><p>M. K. J. R. revised the manuscript.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Lepira, F.B., Mpembe, C.M.B., Mbutiwi, F.I.N., Makulo, J.R., Kayembe, P.K., Kajingulu, K.M., Kintoki, E.V. and M’buyamba-Kabangu, J.R. (2017) Comparison of the Performance of Three Commonly Used Electrocardiogra- phic Indexes for the Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Black Hypertensive Patients with Reduced Kidney Function Managed at a Tertiary Healthcare Hospital: A Post-Hoc Analysis. World Journal of Car- diovascular Diseases, 7, 105-118. https://doi.org/10.4236/wjcd.2017.74011</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.75695-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chahal, N.S., Lim, T.K., Jain, P., et al. (2010) New Insights into the Relationship of Left Ventricular Geometry and Left Ventricular Mass with Cardiac Function: A Population Study of Hypertensive Subjects. European Heart Journal, 31, 588-594.https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehp490</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schiffrin, E., Lipman, M.L. and Mann, J.F.E. (2007) Chronic Kidney Disease. Effects on Cardiovascular System. Circulation, 116, 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.678342</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pewsner, D., Juni, P., Egger, M., et al. (2007) Accuracy of Electrocardiography in the Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review. BMJ, 335, 711. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39276.636354.AE</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ogunlande, O. and Akintomide, A.O. (2013) Assessment of Voltage Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Adult Hypertensives in Southern-Western Nigeria. Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research, 4, 44-46.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Costa, F.A., Rivera, I.R., Castro de Vasconcelos, M.L., et al. (2009) Electrocardiography in the Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Patients with Chronic Renal Disease. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 93, 353-359.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Busari, O., Opadijo, G., Olarewaju, T., Omotoso, A. and Jimoh, A. (2010) Electrocardiographic Correlates of Microalbuminuria in Adult Nigerians with Essential Hypertension. Cardiology Journal, 17, 281-287.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jingi, A.M., Noubiap, J.J.N., Kamdem, P. and Kingue, S. (2014) Determinants and Improvement of Electrocardiographic Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in a Black African Population. PLoS ONE, 9, e9883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096783</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Devereux, R.B. (1990) Is the Electrocardiogram Still Useful for the Detection of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy? Circulation, 81, 144. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.81.3.1144</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lorell, B.H. and Carabello, B.A. (2000) Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: Pathogenesis, Detection, and Prognosis. Circulation, 102, 470. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.102.4.470</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Courand, Y., Lantelme, P. and Gosse, P. (2015) Electrocardiographic Detection of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: To Forget the Sokolow-Lyon Index? Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases, 108, 277-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acvd.2015.03.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M’Buyamba-Kabangu, J.R., Fagard, R., Staessen, J., Lijnen, P. and Amery, A. (1987) Comparison of Blood Pressure and Prevalence of Hypertension in Rural and Urban Zaire. Bibliotheca Cardiologica, 42, 80-87.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sumaili, E.K., Nseka, M.N., Lepira, F.B., et al. (2008) Screening for Proteinuria and Chronic Kidney Disease Risk Factors in Kinshasa: A World Kidney Day 2007 Study. Nephron Clinical Practice, 110, c220-c228. https://doi.org/10.1159/000167869</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Katchunga, P.B., M’Buyamba-Kabangu, J.R., Masumbuko, B.E., et al. (2011) Hypertension in the Adult Congolese Population of Southern Kivu: Results of VITARAA Study. La Presse Médicale, 40, e315623. (In French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M’Buyamba-Kabangu, J.R., Biswika, R.T., Thijs, L., et al. (2009) In-Hospital Mortality among Black Patients Admitted for Hypertension-Related Disorders in Mbuji Mayi, Democratic Republic of the Congo. American Journal of Hypertension, 22, 643-648. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajh.2009.47</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lepira, F.B., M’Buyamba-Kabangu, J.R., Kayembe, P.K. and Nseka, M.N. (2006) Clinical Correlates of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Black Patients with Arterial Hypertension. Cardiovascular Journal of Africa, 17, 7-11.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mpembe, B.C., Lepira, F.B., Mbutiwi, F.I., et al. (2015) Left Ventricular Structure, Geometry and Systolic Function among Hypertensive Black Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases, 5, 287-295. http://www.scirp.org/journal/wjcd https://doi.org/10.4236/wjcd.2015.510032</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Devereux, R.B., Alonso, D.R., Lucas, E.M., et al. (1986) Echocardiographic Assessment of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: Comparison to Necropsy Findings. American Journal of Cardiology, 57, 450-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(86)90771-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">de Simone, G., Kizer, J.R. and Devereux, R.B. (2005) Normalization for Body Size and Population Attributable Risk of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: The Strong Heart Study. American Journal of Hypertension, 18, 191-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjhyper.2004.08.032</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">World Health Organization (WHO) (2000) The Problem of Overweight and Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Report Series 894, Geneva, 537.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dimitrieva, O., de Lusignan, S. and Goldsmith, D. (2013) Association of Anemia in Primary Care Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. Cross-Sectional Study of Quality Improvement in Chronic Kidney Disease (AICKD) Trial Data. BMC Nephrology, 14, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-14-24</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (2001) Executive Summary of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adults Treatment Panel III). JAMA, 285, 2486-2497. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.19.2486</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mansia, G., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2007) Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC): The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of ESH and ESC. Blood Pressure, 16, 135-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/08037050701461084</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De Simone, G., Devereux, R.B., Daniels, S.R., et al. (1995) Effect of Growth Variability on Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: Assessment of Alternative Signals in Adults and Children and Their Capacity to Predict Cardiovascular Risk. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 25, 1056-1061.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De Simone, G., Daniels, S.R., Devereux, R.B., et al. (1992) Left Ventricular Mass and Body Size in Normotensive Children and Adults: Assessment of Allometric Relations and Impact of Overweight. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 20, 1251-1260.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sokolow, M. and Lyon, T.P. (1949) The Ventricular Complex in Left Ventricular Hypertrophy as Obtained by Unipolar Precordial and Limb Leads. American Heart Journal, 37, 161-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-8703(49)90562-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Casale, P.N., Devereux, R.B., Kligfield, P., et al. (1985) Electrocardiographic Detection of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Development and Prospective Validation of Improved Criteria. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 6, 572-580.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Norman Jr., J.E. and Levy, D. (1996)Adjustment of ECG Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Criteria for Body Mass Index and Age Improves Classification Accuracy: The Effects of Hypertension and Obesity. Journal of Electrocardiology, 29, 241-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0736(96)80070-7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI. Clinical Practical Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) (2002) Evaluation, Classification and Stratification. Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 39, S1-S266.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Delacour, A.L., Servonnet, A., Perrot, A., Vigezzi, J.F. and Ramirez, J.M. (2005) Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves: Principles and Main Applications in Clinical Biology. Annales de Biologie Clinique, 63, 145-154. (In French)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dzudie, A., Muna, W., Kingue, S., et al. (2009) Electrocardiograms to Assess Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Black African Hypertensives. 1st Panafrican Congress on Hypertension Organized by International Forum for Hypertension Prevention and Control in Africa (IPFA), Abstract 005.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adebiyi, A.A., Ogah, O.S., Aje, A., et al. (2006) Echocardiographic Partition Values and Prevalence of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Hypertensive Nigerians. BMC Medical Imaging, 6, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2342-6-10</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dada, A., Adebiyi, A.A., Aje, A., Oladipo, O.O. and Falase, A.O. (2006) Comparison of Araoye’s Criteria with Standard Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Nigerian Hypertensives. West African Journal of Medicine, 25, 179-185.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dada, A., Adebiyi, A.A., Aje, A., Oladipo, O.O. and Falase, A.O. (2005) Standard Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Nigerian Hypertensives. Ethnicity &amp; Disease, 15, 578-584.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Katibi, J.A. (1996) Left Ventricular Hypertrophy among Hypertensive Nigerians: Correlation between Echocardiogram and Electrocardiogram. WACP Dissertation, West African Postgraduate Medical College, Lagos.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cordeiro, A.C., Lindholm, B., Sousa, M.G., et al. (2014) Reliability of Electrocardiographic Surrogates of Left Ventricular Mass in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. Journal of Hypertension, 32, 439-445.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rodriguez, S.L., D’Angelo, L., Pereira, C., Krieger, J.E. and Mill, J.G. (2008) Revision of the Sokolow-Lyon-Rappaport and Cornell Voltage Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 90, 44-51.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Verdecchia, P., Dovellini, E.V., Gorini, M., et al. (2000) Comparison of Electrocardiographic Criteria for Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Hypertension: The MAVI Study. Italian Heart Journal, 1, 207-213.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schillaci, G., Verdecchia, P., Borgioni, C., et al. (1994) Improved Electrocardiographic Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy. American Journal of Cardiology, 74, 714-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(94)90316-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Levy, D., Bailey, J.J., Garrison, R.J., et al. (1987) Electrocardiographic Changes with Advancing Age. A Cross-Sectional Study of the Association of Age with QRS Axis, Duration and Voltage. Journal of Electrocardiology, 20, 44-47.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bacharova, L., Schocken, D., Estes, E.H. and Strauss, D. (2014) The Role of ECG in the Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy. Current Cardiology Review, 10, 257-261. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573403X10666140514103220</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bacharova, L., Chen, H., Estes, E.H., Mateasik, A., Bluemke, D.A., Lima, J.A.C., et al. (2015) Determinants of Discrepancies in Detection and Comparison of the Prognostic Significance of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy by Electrocardiogram and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The American Journal of Cardiology, 115, 515-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.11.037</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maunganidze, F., Woodiwiss, A.J., Libhader, C.D., et al. (2013) Obesity Markedly Attenuates the Validity and Performance of All Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Detection in a Group of Black African Ancestry. Journal of Hypertension, 31, 377-383. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e32835b8daa</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Park, J.K., Shin, J.H., Kim, S.H., et al. (2012) A Comparison of Cornell and Sokolow-Lyon Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Korean patients. Korean Circulation Journal, 42, 606-613. https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2012.42.9.606</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Noble, L.M., Humphrey, S.B. and Monoghan, G.B. (1984) Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Left Bundle Branch Block. Journal of Electrocardiology, 17, 157-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0736(84)81090-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tsiachris, D., Chrysogoou, C., Oikonomou, E., et al. (2011) Distinct Role of Electrocardiographic Criteria in Echocardiographic Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy According to Age in the General Population: The IKARA Study. Journal of Hypertension, 29, 1624-1632. https://doi.org/10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283487780</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Calderon, A., Barrios, V., Escobar, C., et al. (2010) Detection of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy by Different Electrocardiographic Criteria in Clinical Practice: Findings from the Sara Study. Clinical and Experimental Hypertension, 32, 145-153. https://doi.org/10.3109/10641960903254455</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cuspidi, C., Facchetti, R., Bombelli, M., et al. (2016) Does QRS Correction by Body Mass Index Improve the Accuracy of Electrocardiography in Detecting Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Predicting Cardiovascular Events in a General Population? The Journal of Clinical Hypertension (Greenwich), 18, 415-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.12678</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.75695-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Burgos, P.F., Filho, L., Costa, F.A., et al. (2017) Electrocardiogram Performance in the Diagnosis of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Hypertensive Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 108, 47-52.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>