Open Access

Ambulatory systolic blood pressure and obesity are independently associated with left ventricular hypertrophic remodeling in children

  • Linyuan Jing1, 2,
  • Christopher D. Nevius1, 2,
  • Cassi M. Friday1, 2,
  • Jonathan D. Suever1, 2,
  • Arichanah Pulenthiran1, 2,
  • Abba Mejia-Spiegeler1, 2,
  • H. Lester Kirchner2,
  • William J. Cochran3,
  • Gregory J. Wehner4,
  • Aftab S. Chishti5,
  • Christopher M. Haggerty1, 2 and
  • Brandon K. Fornwalt1, 2, 6Email author
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance201719:86

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0401-3

Received: 24 April 2017

Accepted: 16 October 2017

Published: 9 November 2017

Abstract

Background

Children with obesity have hypertrophic cardiac remodeling. Hypertension is common in pediatric obesity, and may independently contribute to hypertrophy. We hypothesized that both the degree of obesity and ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) would independently associate with measures of hypertrophic cardiac remodeling in children.

Methods

Children, aged 8–17 years, prospectively underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and ABP monitoring. Left ventricular (LV) mass indexed to height2.7 (LVMI), myocardial thickness and end-diastolic volume were quantified from a 3D LV model reconstructed from cine balanced steady state free precession images. Categories of remodeling were determined based on cutoff values for LVMI and mass/volume. Principal component analysis was used to define a “hypertrophy score” to study the continuous relationship between concentric hypertrophy and ABP.

Results

Seventy-two children were recruited, and 68 of those (37 healthy weight and 31 obese/overweight) completed both CMR and ABP monitoring. Obese/overweight children had increased LVMI (27 ± 4 vs 22 ± 3 g/m2.7, p < 0.001), myocardial thickness (5.6 ± 0.9 vs 4.9 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.001), mass/volume (0.69 ± 0.1 vs 0.61 ± 0.06, p < 0.001), and hypertrophy score (1.1 ± 2.2 vs −0.96 ± 1.1, p < 0.001). Thirty-five percent of obese/overweight children had concentric hypertrophy. Ambulatory hypertension was observed in 26% of the obese/overweight children and none of the controls while masked hypertension was observed in 32% of the obese/overweight children and 16% of the controls. Univariate linear regression showed that BMI z-score, systolic BP (24 h, day and night), and systolic load correlated with LVMI, thickness, mass/volume and hypertrophy score, while 24 h and nighttime diastolic BP and load also correlated with thickness and mass/volume. Multivariate analysis showed body mass index z-score and systolic blood pressure were both independently associated with left ventricular mass index (β=0.54 [p < 0.001] and 0.22 [p = 0.03]), thickness (β=0.34 [p < 0.001] and 0.26 [p = 0.001]) and hypertrophy score (β=0.47 and 0.36, both p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In children, both the degree of obesity and ambulatory blood pressures are independently associated with measures of cardiac hypertrophic remodeling, however the correlations were generally stronger for the degree of obesity. This suggests that interventions targeted at weight loss or obesity-associated co-morbidities including hypertension may be effective in reversing or preventing cardiac remodeling in obese children.

Keywords

Pediatric obesityVentricular remodelingHypertensionCardiovascular magnetic resonanceAmbulatory blood pressure monitoring

Background

Childhood obesity affects 17% of children and adolescents (2–19 years) in the United States [1], and is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death [2, 3]. Although severe cardiovascular disease is rare in children, early signs of heart disease in obese/overweight children have been documented [47]. The most common findings include increased left ventricular (LV) mass and wall thickness. In addition, approximately 25% of obese/overweight children have concentric hypertrophy [7, 8]. These changes are worrisome as both increased LV mass and concentric hypertrophy have been related to increased cardiovascular risk and premature death in adults [9].

Mechanisms underlying hypertrophic cardiac remodeling in obese children are not well understood, at least in part because several obesity co-morbidities, particularly high blood pressure (BP), are known to independently cause LV hypertrophy [10]. High systolic BP, defined as systolic BP ≥95th percentile for height and sex [11], has a prevalence of up to 20% in obese/overweight children [12]. Elevated BP has also been independently associated with LV hypertrophy in childhood [1315], and therefore increased risk for future adult cardiovascular disease [16].

Hypertension is commonly diagnosed with a repeated [11] clinic measurement (often referred to as casual hypertension), however, this approach provides poor characterization of actual BP [17]. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring provides a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of BP over a 24-h period. Previous studies have shown that compared to clinic BP, ABP has a stronger correlation with target organ damage (such as LV mass) in adults [18]. In addition, white-coat hypertension (elevated clinical BP but normal ambulatory BP (ABP) levels) and masked hypertension (normal clinic BP with elevated ABP levels) can only be diagnosed by ABP monitoring. Previous studies have reported a prevalence of 22–32% for white-coat and 7–32% for masked hypertension in children [19].

The relationship between ABP and LV hypertrophy in obese children is not well understood. A few studies using ABP monitoring have shown a positive correlation between systolic BP and increased LVMI [1315, 20]. However, these studies either did not evaluate the independent effect of obesity [20], or were conducted on biased populations (children with casual hypertension [13], at risk for hypertension [14], or with other complications [15]). To our knowledge, no study has comprehensively investigated the relationship between obesity, ABP and measures of cardiac remodeling in otherwise healthy children.

In addition, all previous studies used echocardiography to assess LV mass and/or thickness. Transthoracic ehocardiography suffers from limited acoustic windows and angle dependency. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging overcomes the above limitations, and is therefore the ideal tool for definitively assessing cardiac geometry and remodeling. The objective of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the relationship between obesity, ABP measurements and cardiac remodeling in uncomplicated, asymptomatic children without and with obesity. We hypothesized that ABP measurements and obesity would both independently correlate with CMR derived measures of cardiac remodeling (mass, thickness, hypertrophy).

Methods

Study population

Children ages 8–17 years were prospectively recruited from the University of Kentucky (the High BMI Diagnostic Clinic, and the Center for Clinical and Translational Science volunteer database) and Geisinger Medical Center. Body mass index (BMI) percentiles for age and gender based on the Centers for Disease Control growth charts [21] were used to group the children into different weight categories: obese/overweight (BMI ≥85th percentile) and healthy weight (BMI 5th–85th percentile). Children were excluded if they had 1) diabetes, 2) diagnosed hypertension or history of taking medications that could alter BP, 3) history of heart disease, or 4) contraindications for CMR (including a waist circumference > 125 cm due to the circumference limitation of the scanner bore). A subset (one third) of the subjects were included in a previous study on LV remodeling and cardiac strain [7].

Clinical assessment

Clinical assessment took place at the time of the CMR scan. Height and weight were measured twice using a digital scale and the average values were used to determine age and sex specific BMI (weight/height2 in kg/m2) percentiles. Resting BP was measured manually by auscultation using an appropriately sized cuff after 10 min of rest. Three measurements were taken, and the average of the last two was reported as the clinic BP. The clinic BP was classified into normal, pre-hypertensive or hypertensive based on established reference values for age, height and sex. All children had a normal 12-lead electrocardiogram.

CMR imaging

A CMR study was performed on all subjects on a 3 T (Trio, Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) using 6-element chest and 24-element spine coils. Standard elecrocardiogram-gated balanced steady-state free-precession (bSSFP) images were acquired during 10–15 s breath-holds to assess cardiac geometry and remodeling. Two-chamber, four-chamber and a stack of short-axis bSSFP images spanning both ventricles were acquired. 7–11 short-axis images were acquired depending on the size of the heart. Acquisition parameters included 3.16−3.37 ms repetition time, 1.3−1.5 ms echo time, [292−400] x [340−400] mm2 field of view, [208−256] × 256 image matrix, 50° flip angle, 16.4−49.9 ms temporal resolution, 8 mm slice thickness, and 0−3.7 mm slice gap.

Cardiac remodeling

To assess cardiac geometry and remodeling, both LV and right ventricular (RV) endocardial boundaries were manually delineated on end-diastolic and end-systolic frames of the bSSFP images. LV epicardial boundaries were defined on an end-diastolic frame to quantify LV mass and wall thickness. LV end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volumes were computed from reconstructed 3D endocardial surfaces (Figure 1) using a custom algorithm written in MATLAB (The Mathworks, Natick, Massachusetts, USA) as previously described [7]. A 3D epicardial surface was reconstructed to quantify LV myocardial mass assuming a myocardial density of 1.05 g/mL. To account for somatic growth, LV mass was indexed to height2.7 (LVMI), which has been shown to best predict cardiac risk compared to other methods of normalization [22]. LV myocardial wall thickness was computed as the equipotential distance between the epicardial and endocardial surfaces for over 2000 points on the 3D surfaces [23]. The average of all distances was reported as the mean thickness. RV EDV and ESV were calculated using Simpson’s rule using contours from all short-axis images. RV myocardial mass (indexed to height2.7, RVMI) was calculated from the end-diastolic frame assuming a myocardial density of 1.05 g/mL. LV and RV ejection fraction were also derived ((EDV-ESV)/EDVx100%).
Fig. 1

Three-dimensional left ventricular (LV) endocardial and epicardial surfaces (d) were reconstructed using a stack of short-axis bSSFP images (a), a two-chamber view (b), and a four-chamber view (c)

To study the relationship between hypertrophic cardiac remodeling and BP measurements, cutoff values of LVMI (27.52 g/m2.7) and mass/volume ratio (0.69), defined from a previous study [7], were used to classify all subjects into one of the four LV remodeling types: normal geometry, concentric remodeling, eccentric hypertrophy and concentric hypertrophy (Figure 2A). Furthermore, to represent the presence of concentric hypertrophy with a continuous variable, principal component analysis using LVMI and mass/volume was used to derive a hypertrophy score. LVMI and mass/volume were normalized by the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the healthy controls, and hypertrophy score was defined as the projection onto the first principal component (Figure 2B). A lower hypertrophy score corresponds to a more normal geometry, whereas a higher score corresponds to more concentric hypertrophy.
Fig. 2

Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to represent left ventricular (LV) concentric hypertrophy. LV remodeling types were determined using previously defined cutoff values of LV mass index (LVMI) and mass/volume ratio (a). LVMI and mass/volume ratio were normalized by subtracting the mean and divided by the standard deviation derived from the healthy controls, and then hypertrophy scores were defined as the projections (red dot) along the 1st principal component direction using PCA (b)

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Following the CMR scan, ABP monitoring was conducted using a SunTech Oscar 2 24-h ABP device and Orbit BP cuff (SunTech Medical, Inc. Morrisville, North Carolina, USA). An appropriate cuff based on the subject’s arm circumference was chosen from four available sizes, and placed tightly on the subject’s non-dominant arm. The device would inflate shortly after activation and take two readings within the first 5 min, which a member of the study team used to confirm correct functionality. These initial readings were not included in subsequent analysis. The device was programmed to take a reading every 20–30 min between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm, and every 30–45 min from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Daytime and nighttime for each subject were determined by self-reported sleep and wake times from diaries. Subjects were advised to follow ordinary daily activities but avoid vigorous exercise and to relax the arm during the inflation and deflation of the cuff. Measurements were automatically repeated if the device failed to take a reading.

After 24 h, the device and cuff were removed. Data were downloaded using the manufacturer’s software AccuWin Pro, and analyzed according to the American Heart Association (AHA) statement [19]. Subjects (n = 4) with fewer than 14 daytime readings or fewer than 7 nighttime readings were excluded from analysis. Height- and sex- specific normative reference values from a European cohort provided by the German Working Group on Pediatric Hypertension were used [24]. BP load was defined as the percentage of measurements that were above the 95th percentile for height and sex. Mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), and systolic and diastolic loads were computed for the entire 24-h period, day time and night time. In addition, systolic and diastolic dipping were calculated as the percent drop in mean nighttime BP relative to mean daytime BP ((BPday-BPnight)/BPdayx100%). A dipping of at least 10% was considered normal [19]. BP staging was determined based on classification criteria from the American Heart Association statement [19] using both clinic BP and ABP measurements and summarized as follows:
  1. 1.

    Normal BP: clinic BP <90th percentile, ABP <95th percentile and BP load <25%;

     
  2. 2.

    Masked hypertension: clinic BP <95th percentile, ABP >95th percentile and BP load ≥25%;

     
  3. 3.

    Pre-hypertension: clinic BP ≥90th percentile, ABP <95th percentile and BP load ≥25%;

     
  4. 4.

    Ambulatory or sustained hypertension: both clinic BP and ABP >95th percentile and BP load ≥25%.

     

Statistics

Continuous variables were reported as mean ± SD. The two-sample student’s t-test was used to compare differences between the obese/overweight and healthy groups. Categorical variables were compared between groups using either Pearson’s Chi-Square or Fisher’s exact tests. Linear regression, with adjustment for age, was used to estimate the differences in measures of cardiac remodeling and ABP parameters between groups. Correlations between BMI z-score, BP parameters and measures of cardiac remodeling were estimated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Stepwise linear regression was performed to determine independent predictors for measures of cardiac remodeling. Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used for model selection, i.e. the model with the smallest AIC was selected as the final model by the stepwise regression. Statistical significance level was set to p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed in R [25] (Version 3.3.1).

Results

Demographics and clinical assessment

Seventy-two children were enrolled in the study. Of those, 4 did not complete ABP monitoring and were excluded from data analysis. A total of 68 subjects, including 31 obese/overweight (median age: 12.5 years, interquartile range: 11.3–14.3 years, 43% female) and 37 healthy weight (median age: 13.3 years, interquartile range: 12.1–15.6 years, 55% female) children, completed both CMR and ABP monitoring and were included in subsequent analysis. Table 1 summarizes the demographics and clinical assessment of the study population. Age, sex and height were comparable between the two groups.
Table 1

Demographics and clinical parameters (mean ± SD, and median [interquartile range]) of the study population

 

Obese/Overweight

n = 31

Healthy

n = 37

p *

Age (years)

12.8 ± 2.5

12.5 [11.3, 14.3]

13.4 ± 2.6

13.3 [12.1, 15.6]

0.31

Sex (M/F)

14/17

21/16

0.47

Weight (kg)

75 ± 21

74 [56, 92]

47 ± 13

49 [37, 56]

<0.001

Height (cm)

158 ± 13

157 [149, 165]

156 ± 14

158 [147, 166]

0.56

Body Mass Index (kg/m2)

29 ± 6

29 [25, 33]

19 ± 3

19 [18, 21]

<0.001

Body Mass Index Percentile

96 ± 4

98 [95, 99]

47 ± 26

52 [27, 66]

 

Body Mass Index z-score

2.0 ± 0.5

2.2 [1.7, 2.3]

−0.2 ± 0.9

0.1 [−0.6, 0.4]

 

Heart rate (beats/min)

72 ± 9

70 ± 9

0.32

Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)

117 ± 11

111 ± 8

0.001

Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)

75 ± 6

72 ± 5

0.07

Mean arterial pressure (mmHg)

89 ± 7

85 ± 6

0.005

*p values for systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressures are adjusted for age

Cardiac remodeling

LVMI (27 ± 4 vs 22 ± 3 g/m2.7, p < 0.001), mean myocardial thickness (5.6 ± 0.9 vs 4.9 ± 0.7 mm, p < 0.001) and mass/volume ratio (0.69 ± 0.1 vs 0.61 ± 0.06, p < 0.001) were significantly larger in obese/overweight children compared to healthy controls (Table 2). A representative example of LV remodeling is shown in Fig. 3. In addition, obese/overweight children had larger RVMI (7.9 ± 1.2 vs 6.5 ± 1.0 g/m2.7, p < 0.001). LV and RV EDV and ESV were comparable between the groups. There were no significant differences in LV or RV ejection fractions (Table 2).
Table 2

Cardiac geometry, ejection fraction and remodeling, mean ± SD or N(%)

 

Obese/Overweight

n = 31

Healthy

n = 37

p, age adjusted

LV geometry and function

 LV mass index (g/m2.7)

27 ± 4

22 ± 3

<0.001

 LV end-diastolic volume (mL)

137 ± 29

125 ± 36

0.07

 LV end-systolic volume (mL)

51 ± 14

48 ± 15

0.25

 LV mass/volume ratio

0.69 ± 0.10

0.61 ± 0.06

<0.001

 LV mean thickness (mm)

5.6 ± 0.9

4.9 ± 0.7

<0.001

 LV ejection fraction (%)

63 ± 4

62 ± 4

0.44

LV remodeling

 LV hypertrophy score

1.1 ± 2.2

−0.96 ± 1.1

<0.001

 LV remodeling types*

  

<0.001

 Normal geometry

15 (49)

31 (84)

 

 Concentric remodeling

1 (3)

3 (8)

 

 Eccentric hypertrophy

4 (13)

2 (5)

 

 Concentric hypertrophy

11 (35)

1 (3)

 

RV geometry and function

 RV mass index (g/m2.7)

7.9 ± 1.2

6.5 ± 1.0

<0.001

 RV end-diastolic volume (mL)

151 ± 37

141 ± 42

0.20

 RV end-systolic volume (mL)

59 ± 18

55 ± 20

0.37

 RV ejection fraction (%)

61 ± 6

61 ± 4

0.94

LV left ventricular, RV right ventricular

*p value for LV remodeling types is not adjusted for age

Fig. 3

A representative example of LV remodeling (wall thickening) from an obese male with concentric hypertrophy compared to an age-matched healthy male

More than half of the obese/overweight children had some form of LV remodeling: 11 (35%) had concentric hypertrophy, 1 (3%) had concentric remodeling, 4 (13%) had eccentric hypertrophy, and the remaining 15 (49%) had normal geometry. The hypertrophy score was also higher in the obese/overweight children compared to the healthy weight group (1.1 ± 2.2 vs −0.96 ± 1.1, p < 0.001, Table 2).

Blood pressure measurements

Compared to healthy controls, obese/overweight children had elevated clinic SBP (117 ± 11 vs 111 ± 8 mmHg, p = 0.001) and mean arterial pressure (89 ± 7 vs 85 ± 6 mmHg, p = 0.005) (Table 1). Results of the ABP measurements are summarized in Table 3. SBP and systolic load in obese/overweight children was elevated for all time periods compared to healthy controls. Specifically, 24 h SBP was elevated by 8% (p = 0.004), while systolic load almost doubled that of the healthy controls (p = 0.001). In addition, obese/overweight children had slightly higher nighttime DBP (59 ± 9 vs 56 ± 6 mmHg, p = 0.046) and 24 h diastolic load (19 ± 17% vs 12 ± 11%, p = 0.04), while 24 h and daytime DBP and daytime and nighttime diastolic load were comparable to healthy controls. Systolic dipping (10 ± 6% vs 13 ± 7%, p = 0.09) and diastolic dipping (15 ± 9% vs 19 ± 8%, p = 0.07) trended lower in obese/overweight children.
Table 3

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring measurements (mean ± SD)

 

Obese/Overweight

n = 31

Healthy

n = 37

p, age adjusted

24-h

 24 h SBP (mmHg)

126 ± 15

117 ± 11

0.004

 24 h DBP (mmHg)

66 ± 8

64 ± 6

0.19

 24 h systolic load (%)

41 ± 28

22 ± 18

0.001

 24 h diastolic load (%)

19 ± 17

12 ± 11

0.04

Daytime

 Day SBP (mmHg)

130 ± 15

123 ± 11

0.01

 Day DBP (mmHg)

70 ± 8

69 ± 7

0.58

 Day systolic load (%)

41 ± 28

23 ± 17

0.001

 Day diastolic load (%)

17 ± 16

13 ± 14

0.21

Nighttime

 Night SBP (mmHg)

117 ± 17

107 ± 13

0.003

 Night DBP (mmHg)

59 ± 9

56 ± 6

0.046

 Night systolic load (%)

41 ± 31

20 ± 26

0.003

 Night diastolic load (%)

22 ± 24

13 ± 15

0.06

Nocturnal Dipping

 Systolic dipping (%)

10 ± 6

13 ± 7

0.09

 Diastolic dipping (%)

15 ± 9

19 ± 8

0.07

SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure

Blood pressure classifications

BP classification was significantly different between obese/overweight and healthy weight children (p < 0.001, Table 4). Eight out of the 31 (26%) obese/overweight children had ambulatory hypertension compared to none in the healthy weight group. The prevalence of masked hypertension was 32% in obese/overweight children, compared to 16% in healthy controls. The prevalence of pre-hypertension was low and comparable between the groups (6% in obese/overweight vs 5% in healthy weight). Only 36% of obese/overweight children had normal BP.
Table 4

Blood pressure classification, N(%)

Classification

Obese/Overweight

n = 31

Healthy

n = 37

Total

n = 68

Normal

11 (36)

29 (79)

40 (59)

Masked hypertension

10 (32)

6 (16)

16 (23)

Pre-hypertension

2 (6)

2 (5)

4 (6)

Ambulatory hypertension

8 (26)

0 (0)

8 (12)

p < 0.001 between obese/overweight and healthy weight children

Correlations between blood pressure, obesity and cardiac remodeling

Results of the univariate linear regression between ABP measurements, BMI z-score and measures of cardiac remodeling are reported in Table 5 where only significant correlations are shown. BMI z-score moderately correlated to all measures of cardiac remodeling (LVMI: r = 0.62; mean thickness: r = 0.49; mass/volume: r = 0.43; hypertrophy score: r = 0.58; all p < 0.001).
Table 5

Linear correlations between BMI z-score, ABP measurements and measures of left ventricular remodeling

 

LVMI

LV Thickness

LV Mass/Volume

LV Hypertrophy score

 

r

p

r

p

r

p

r

p

BMI z-score

0.62

<0.001

0.49

<0.001

0.43

<0.001

0.58

<0.001

Systolic

 24 h SBP

0.36

0.003

0.60

<0.001

0.44

<0.001

0.44

<0.001

 Day SBP

0.39

0.001

0.57

<0.001

0.41

<0.001

0.45

<0.001

 Night SBP

0.34

0.005

0.57

<0.001

0.46

<0.001

0.43

<0.001

 24 h systolic load

0.33

0.006

0.43

<0.001

0.36

0.003

0.37

0.002

 Day systolic load

0.34

0.005

0.37

0.002

0.32

0.007

0.36

0.003

 Night systolic load

0.31

0.01

0.44

<0.001

0.39

0.001

0.36

0.003

 Systolic dipping

    

−0.26

0.04

  

Diastolic

 24 h DBP

    

0.27

0.03

  

 Night DBP

  

0.24

0.046

0.31

0.01

  

 24 h diastolic load

  

0.26

0.03

0.31

0.009

  

 Night diastolic load

  

0.32

0.007

0.32

0.009

  

ABP ambulatory blood pressure, BMI body mass index, SBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, LVMI left ventricular mass index

LVMI and hypertrophy score correlated with all measures of SBP and systolic load, but most strongly with 24 h SBP (LVMI: r = 0.36, p = 0.003; hypertrophy score: r = 0.44, p < 0.001). Mean thickness and mass/volume correlated to all BP and BP load measurements except for daytime DBP. The strongest correlations were also with 24 h SBP (thickness: r = 0.60, p < 0.001; mass/volume: r = 0.44, p < 0.001). There was also a weak negative correlation between mass/volume and systolic dipping (r = −0.26, p = 0.04).

Multivariate linear regression

After adjusting for sex and height, BMI z-score and 24 h SBP were independent predictors of LVMI (β=0.54 and 0.22) and hypertrophy score (β=0.47 and 0.36), while nighttime SBP and BMI z-score were independent predictors of thickness (β=0.26 and 0.34) and mass/volume ratio (β=0.35 and 0.31) (Table 6). Moreover, Fig. 4 shows that two distinct regression models describe the relationship between 24 h SBP and LVMI for obese/overweight children and healthy weight children, indicating independent contributions of 24 h SBP and obesity to increased LVMI. BMI z-score generally had stronger relationships (higher β coefficients) with the measures of LV remodeling compared to the ABP derived metrics.
Table 6

Multivariate linear regression (height and sex adjusted)

 

LVMI

LV Thickness

LV Mass/Volume

LV Hypertrophy Score

 

β (SE)

p

β (SE)

p

β (SE)

p

β (SE)

p

BMI z-score

0.54

(0.10)

<0.001

0.34 (0.07)

<0.001

0.31

(0.10)

0.004

0.47

(0.10)

<0.001

24 h SBP

0.22

(0.10)

0.03

    

0.36

(0.10)

<0.001

Night SBP

  

0.26 (0.08)

0.001

0.35

(0.11)

0.002

  

β: normalized coefficient, SE standard error, BMI body mass index, SBP systolic blood pressure, LVMI left ventricular mass index

Fig. 4

24 h systolic blood pressure is associated with left ventricular mass index (LVMI), however, obesity independently contributes to increased LVMI

Discussion

In the current study, we comprehensively investigated the relationship between obesity, ambulatory blood pressure and measures of cardiac remodeling using CMR in 68 asymptomatic children. Major findings include: 1) obese/overweight children have LV and RV remodeling, as evidenced by increased LVMI, LV wall thickness, LV mass/volume and RVMI; 35% of obese/overweight children have concentric LV hypertrophy; 2) ambulatory SBP, DBP and BP loads are elevated in obese/overweight children; 26% of obese/overweight children have ambulatory hypertension and 32% have masked hypertension; 3) BMI z-score, systolic BP and BP load correlate with all measures of LV remodeling (LVMI, thickness, mass/volume, hypertrophy score); 4) BMI z-score and 24 h SBP independently associate with LVMI and the extent of LV concentric hypertrophy.

Obesity-related hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Hypertension is a common comorbidity in childhood obesity [26]. In multiple cross-sectional and longitudinal studies conducted in children, BMI has been shown to have a strong effect on increases in BP that is greater than all other considered factors [2729]. Considering the well-known effect of hypertension on cardiovascular morbidity in adults [16], accurate assessment and diagnosis of obesity-related hypertension is critical to appropriately risk stratify these children and consider targeted treatment. Clinic BP is a commonly used tool for screening subjects with hypertension. However, this single measurement of BP may not reflect physiological variations in BP, leading to an inaccurate or missed diagnosis. ABP monitoring provides a comprehensive evaluation of the BP profile and is therefore superior to clinic BP in detecting hypertension in obese children.

Based on American Heart Association criteria [19], 26% of obese/overweight children had ambulatory/sustained hypertension. This prevalence is lower than the 50–60% range reported by previous studies [3032], likely because we only enrolled uncomplicated and asymptomatic subjects without a clinical diagnosis of hypertension. These criteria may similarly explain why we did not detect any subjects with white coat hypertension, although a prevalence of 30–50% has been reported previously [33, 34]. Additionally, masked hypertension was detected in 32% of obese/overweight and 16% of healthy weight children. The true prevalence of masked hypertension is not well established in the literature, ranging from 7% in the general population [31] to 26% in subjects at risk for hypertension [32]. The modest discrepancies may lie in the variations in sample size and selection bias of the study population, and a larger population may be needed to determine the true prevalence of masked hypertension in children. Identification of masked hypertension is important since these children may have similar cardiovascular risk as those with sustained hypertension [35, 36]. ABP monitoring is therefore an essential tool for risk stratification of hypertensive children.

Obesity, blood pressure and cardiac remodeling

Cardiac remodeling, estimated by increased LVMI, wall thickness and the presence of LV hypertrophy defined as LVMI > 51 g/m2.7 using echocardiography [37], has been widely used as a surrogate for target organ damage in the pediatric population [13, 15, 38, 39]. Children with increased LVMI and LV hypertrophy may be at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death as adults [16]. Therefore, identifying mechanisms underlying cardiac remodeling is essential for targeted treatment.

Obesity and hypertension have both been related to cardiac remodeling in children. Although obesity is known to impact LV geometry independent of its associated risk factors such as insulin resistance and inflammatory biomarkers [8, 19, 38, 40], reports on the role of hypertension in cardiac remodeling are controversial. Increased LVMI is often linked to hypertension assuming the ventricular wall thickens to compensate for increased afterload. Although most studies have shown that after controlling for BMI z-score, ambulatory systolic BP and/or systolic load correlated with LVMI and/or relative wall thickness [1315, 32], a few studies found no [38] or weak [34] associations between elevated BP and increased LVMI or LV hypertrophy. An observational study by Brady et al. [38] further showed that between two clinic visits 12 months apart, despite increased LVMI and prevalence of LV hypertrophy at the second visit, change in BP was minimal; and that adiposity remained the only factor independently associated with increased LVMI after adjusting for multiple biomarkers. Similarly, in obese adults who lost weight through bariatric surgery, decreases in LVMI and relative wall thickness were not associated with a reduction in BP [41]. This evidence suggests that LV remodeling in obese children is mediated through both BP dependent and independent pathways.

In the current study, to comprehensively evaluate the contribution of obesity and blood pressure to cardiac remodeling in obese children, we used CMR with 3D surface reconstructions to assess LV geometry and remodeling, and defined a continuous variable (the hypertrophy score) to represent the presence of LV hypertrophy. CMR is superior to 2D transthoracic echocardiography for quantification of cardiac geometry and remodeling due to better image quality and inter-observer and inter-test reproducibility [42], while echocardiography suffers from limited acoustic windows and angle dependency. Note that the reported LVMI in the current study is smaller than the previously defined LV hypertrophy threshold value of 51 g/m2.7, probably due to multiple reasons. First, the 51 g/m2.7 threshold was defined using echocardiography, and is not directly applicable to CMR since discrepancies between CMR and echocardiography have been reported [43]. Second, our study was conducted in children, while the 51 g/m2.7 threshold was defined in adults. Therefore, we used threshold values of LVMI and mass/volume ratio derived from a previous CMR study in healthy children to categorize the different remodeling types [7].

Consistent with most previous studies, we found that both BMI z-score and systolic BP (24 h or nighttime) are independently associated with LVMI, thickness, mass/volume and hypertrophy score. Moreover, compared to systolic BP, BMI z-score may be more strongly associated with measures of cardiac remodeling, especially for LVMI. When plotting LVMI against 24 h systolic BP, LVMI for obese/overweight children fit on a different line from healthy weight children. This finding suggests that although LV remodeling is affected by elevated BP to some extent, it may not be the most important contributor. Thus, while antihypertensive treatment may be warranted in children with hypertension, additional interventions targeted at weight loss or pathways involved in other obesity co-morbidities may be necessary to effectively reverse or prevent cardiac remodeling and future cardiovascular risk.

Limitations

In this cross-sectional study, contributions of obesity and ABP to changes in measures of cardiac remodeling could not be investigated. Future studies with longitudinal follow-up are required to address this issue. In addition, most subjects in the current study were white. As racial differences have been shown to affect ABP in children [44], results observed in the current study may not hold true for a more generalized pediatric population. However, a previous study has shown that race/ethnicity does not affect the relationship between BP and LVMI [14]. Since gender also impacts the relationship between obesity, BP and cardiac remodeling [45], we included gender as a dependent variable in the multivariate model. However, we did not find significant correlations between gender and measures of cardiac remodeling in the current study.

Multiple statistical tests were performed in the current study, however, we chose not to adjust for multiple testing and to leave it to the reader to interpret the statistical results in the presence of multiple testing. The associations between ABP and cardiac outcomes were investigated using linear models, it is possible that the associations were nonlinear. However, an assessment of the linearity assumption for the continuous variables was performed and all were found to be linear.

Conclusions

In children, both the degree of obesity and elevated ambulatory blood pressure are independently associated with increased LVMI and wall thickness as well as the presence of concentric hypertrophy. This suggests that interventions targeted at weight loss or pathways involved in obesity-associated co-morbidities such as hypertension may be effective in reversing or preventing cardiac remodeling and future cardiovascular risk.

Abbreviations

ABP: 

Ambulatory blood pressure

BMI: 

Body mass index

BP: 

Blood pressure

bSSFP: 

Balanced steady-state free-precession

CMR: 

Cardiovasular magnetic resonance

DBP: 

Diastolic blood pressure

EDV: 

End-diastolic volume

ESV: 

End-systolic volume

LV: 

Left ventricle/left ventricular

LVMI: 

Left ventricular mass index

RV: 

Right ventricle/right ventricular

RVMI: 

Right ventricular mass index

SBP: 

Systolic blood pressure

SD: 

Standard deviation

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This project was supported by the NIH via grants P20 GM103527 and UL1 TR000117, and by the American Heart Association Great Rivers Affiliate via grant 14POST20310025. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding sources.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available on reasonable request with approval of the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

LJ collected and analyzed data, assisted with study design and drafted the manuscript. CN and CF helped with subject recruitment and helped to collect the data and revise the manuscript. JS assisted with data acquisition and analysis, and helped with critical revision of the manuscript. AP and AM analyzed data and helped with data collection and revision of the manuscript. HLK helped with statistical analysis for the study and critical revision of the manuscript. WC helped with subject recruitment and revised the manuscript. GW and AC assisted with data interpretation and revision of the manuscript. CH contributed to study design, data collection and interpretation, and helped with critical revision of the manuscript. BF conceived the study, participated in study design and implementation, and assisted with critical revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by Institutional Review Boards at both the University of Kentucky (13–0201-P6H) and Geisinger Health System (2015–0159). All subjects provided assent and their parents/legal guardians provided written and informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Imaging Science and Innovation, Geisinger
(2)
Biomedical and Translational Informatics Institute, Geisinger
(3)
Pediatric Gastroenterology, Geisinger
(4)
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Kentucky
(5)
Division of Nephrology, Hypertension and Renal Transplantation, University of Kentucky
(6)
Department of Radiology, Geisinger

References

  1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Lawman HG, Fryar CD, Kruszon-Moran D, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Trends in obesity prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States, 1988-1994 through 2013-2014. JAMA. 2016;315:2292.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Twig G, Yaniv G, Levine H, Leiba A, Goldberger N, Derazne E, Ben-Ami Shor D, Tzur D, Afek A, Shamiss A, Haklai Z, Kark JD. Body-mass index in 2.3 million adolescents and cardiovascular death in adulthood. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2430–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cote AT, Harris KC, Panagiotopoulos C, Sandor GGS, Devlin AM. Childhood obesity and cardiovascular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1309–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbosa JA, Mota CC, Silva AC SE, MDCP N, Barbosa MM. Assessing pre-clinical ventricular dysfunction in obese children and adolescents: the value of speckle tracking imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;14:882–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Salvo G, Pacileo G, Del Giudice EM, Natale F, Limongelli G, Verrengia M, Rea A, Fratta F, Castaldi B, D’Andrea A, Calabrò P, Miele T, Coppola F, Russo MG, Caso P, Perrone L, Calabrò R. Abnormal myocardial deformation properties in obese, non-hypertensive children: an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, standard echocardiographic, and strain rate imaging study. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:2689–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Koopman LP, McCrindle BW, Slorach C, Chahal N, Hui W, Sarkola T, Manlhiot C, Jaeggi ET, Bradley TJ, Mertens L. Interaction between myocardial and vascular changes in obese children: a pilot study. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25:401–10. e1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jing L, Binkley CM, Suever JD, Umasankar N, Haggerty CM, Rich J, Wehner GJ, Hamlet SM, Powell DK, Radulescu A, Kirchner HL, Epstein FH, Fornwalt BK. Cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in childhood obesity: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016;18:28.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Dhuper S, Abdullah RA, Weichbrod L, Mahdi E, Cohen HW. Association of obesity and hypertension with left ventricular geometry and function in children and adolescents. Obes (Silver Spring). 2011;19:128–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Krumholz HM, Larson M, Levy D. Prognosis of left ventricular geometric patterns in the Framingham heart study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:879–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ganau A, Devereux RB, Roman MJ, de Simone G, Pickering TG, Saba PS, Vargiu P, Simongini I, Laragh JH. Patterns of left ventricular hypertrophy and geometric remodeling in essential hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:1550–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents. The fourth report on the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2004;114:555–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Falkner B, Gidding SS, Ramirez-Garnica G, Wiltrout SA, West D, Rappaport EB. The relationship of body mass index and blood pressure in primary care pediatric patients. J Pediatr. 2006;148:195–200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Sorof JM, Cardwell G, Franco K, Portman RJ. Ambulatory blood pressure and left ventricular mass index in hypertensive children. Hypertension. 2002;39:903–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Richey PA, Di Sessa TG, Hastings MC, Somes GW, Alpert BS, Jones DP. Ambulatory blood pressure and increased left ventricular mass in children at risk for hypertension. J Pediatr. 2008;152:343–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Amin R, Somers VK, McConnell K, Willging P, Myer C, Sherman M, McPhail G, Morgenthal A, Fenchel M, Bean J, Kimball T, Daniels S. Activity-adjusted 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and cardiac remodeling in children with sleep disordered breathing. Hypertension. 2008;51:84–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Verdecchia P, Carini G, Circo A, Dovellini E, Giovannini E, Lombardo M, Solinas P, Gorini M, Maggioni AP. Left ventricular mass and cardiovascular morbidity in essential hypertension: the MAVI study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:1829–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Li A-Q, Zhao Z-Y, Zhang L-L, F-H L, Yan Z-H, Li Y-Y, Chen H. Overweight influence on circadian variations of ambulatory blood pressure in Chinese adolescents. Clin Exp Hypertens. 2005;27:195–201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bliziotis IA, Destounis A, Stergiou GS. Home versus ambulatory and office blood pressure in predicting target organ damage in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hypertens. 2012;30:1289–99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Flynn JT, Daniels SR, Hayman LL, Maahs DM, McCrindle BW, Mitsnefes M, Zachariah JP, Urbina EM. Update: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in children and adolescents: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2014;63:1116–35.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Shikha D, Singla M, Walia R, Potter N, Umpaichitra V, Mercado A, Winer N. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in lean, obese and diabetic children and adolescents. Cardiorenal Med. 2015;5:183–90.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Guo SS, Grummer-Strawn LM, Flegal KM, Mei Z, Wei R, Curtin LR, Roche AF, Johnson CL. 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States: methods and development. Vital Heal Stat. 2002:1–190.Google Scholar
  22. de Simone G, Daniels SR, Devereux RB, Meyer RA, Roman MJ, de Divitiis O, Alderman MH. Left ventricular mass and body size in normotensive children and adults: assessment of allometric relations and impact of overweight. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20:1251–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Yezzi AJ, Prince JL. An Eulerian PDE approach for computing tissue thickness. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003;22:1332–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Wühl E, Witte K, Soergel M, Mehls O, Schaefer F. Distribution of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure in children: normalized reference values and role of body dimensions. J Hypertens. 2002;20:1995–2007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2008.Google Scholar
  26. Sorof J, Daniels S. Obesity hypertension in children: a problem of epidemic proportions. Hypertension. 2002;40:441–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Shi Y, De Groh M, Morrison H. Increasing blood pressure and its associated factors in Canadian children and adolescents from the Canadian health measures survey. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Falkner B, Gidding SS, Portman R, Rosner B. Blood pressure variability and classification of prehypertension and hypertension in adolescence. Pediatrics. 2008;122:238–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Gurven M, Blackwell AD, Rodríguez DE, Stieglitz J, Kaplan H. Does blood pressure inevitably rise with age?: longitudinal evidence among forager-horticulturalists. Hypertension. 2012;60:25–33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Stabouli S, Kotsis V, Papamichael C, Constantopoulos A, Zakopoulos N. Adolescent obesity is associated with high ambulatory blood pressure and increased carotid intimal-medial thickness. J Pediatr. 2005;147:651–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lurbe E, Torro I, Alvarez V, Nawrot T, Paya R, Redon J, Staessen JA. Prevalence, persistence, and clinical significance of masked hypertension in youth. Hypertension. 2005;45:493–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Maggio ABR, Aggoun Y, Marchand LM, Martin XE, Herrmann F, Beghetti M, Farpour-Lambert NJ. Associations among obesity, blood pressure, and left ventricular mass. J Pediatr. 2008;152:489–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sorof JM, Poffenbarger T, Franco K, Portman R. Evaluation of white coat hypertension in children: importance of the definitions of normal ambulatory blood pressure and the severity of casual hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2001;14(9 I):855–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramaswamy P, Chikkabyrappa S, Donda K, Osmolovsky M, Rojas M, Rafii D. Relationship of ambulatory blood pressure and body mass index to left ventricular mass index in pediatric patients with casual hypertension. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2016;10:108–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McNiece KL, Gupta-Malhotra M, Samuels J, Bell C, Garcia K, Poffenbarger T, Sorof JM, Portman RJ. Left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive adolescents: analysis of risk by 2004 national high blood pressure education program working group staging criteria. Hypertension. 2007;50:392–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Stabouli S, Kotsis V, Toumanidis S, Papamichael C, Constantopoulos A, Zakopoulos N. White-coat and masked hypertension in children: association with target-organ damage. Pediatr Nephrol. 2005;20:1151–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. de Simone G, Devereux RB, Daniels SR, Koren MJ, Meyer RA, Laragh JH. Effect of growth on variability of left ventricular mass: assessment of allometric signals in adults and children and their capacity to predict cardiovascular risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25:1056–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Brady TM, Appel LJ, Holmes KW, Fivush B, Miller ER. Association between adiposity and left ventricular mass in children with hypertension. J Clin Hypertens. 2016;18:625–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Stabouli S, Kotsis V, Zakopoulos N. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and target organ damage in pediatrics. J Hypertens. 2007;25:1979–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Tekn N, Ersoy B, Coskun S, Tekn G, Polat M. Ambulatory blood pressure parameters in office normotensive obese and non-obese children: relationship with insulin resistance and atherosclerotic markers. Med Princ Pract. 2014;23:154–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Karason K, Wallentin I, Larsson B, Sjöström L. Effects of obesity and weight loss on left ventricular mass and relative wall thickness: survey and intervention study. BMJ. 1997;315:912–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Grothues F, Smith GC, Moon JCC, Bellenger NG, Collins P, Klein HU, Pennell DJ. Comparison of interstudy reproducibility of cardiovascular magnetic resonance with two-dimensional echocardiography in normal subjects and in patients with heart failure or left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:29–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Devlin AM, Moore NR, Östman-Smith I. A comparison of MRI and echocardiography in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Br J Radiol. 1999;72(MAR.):258–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Harshfield GA, Barbeau P, Richey PA, Alpert BS. Racial differences in the influence of body size on ambulatory blood pressure in youths. Blood Press Monit. 2000;5:59–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. de Simone G, Devereux RB, Roman MJ, Alderman MH, Laragh JH. Relation of obesity and gender to left ventricular hypertrophy in normotensive and hypertensive adults. Hypertension. 1994;23:600–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement