Abstract
BACKGROUND Body size indexation is a foundation of the diagnostic interpretation of cardiac size measures used in imaging assessment of cardiovascular health. Body surface area (BSA) is the most commonly used metric for body size indexation of echocardiographic measures, but its use in patients who are underweight or obese is questioned (body mass index (BMI) <18·5 kg/m2 or ≥30 kg/m2, respectively). We hypothesized that mortality can be used to identify an optimal body size indexation metric for echocardiographic measures that would be a better predictor of survival than BSA regardless of BMI.
METHODS In this big data, cohort study, adult patients with no prior valve replacement were selected from the National Echo Database Australia. Survival analysis was performed for echocardiographic measures both unindexed and indexed to different body size metrics, with 5-year cardiovascular mortality as the primary endpoint.
FINDINGS Indexation of echocardiographic measures (left ventricular diameter [n=337,481] and mass [n=330,959], left atrial area [n=136,989], aortic sinus diameter [n=125,130], right atrial area [n=81,699], right ventricular diameter [n=3,575], right ventricular outflow tract diameter [n=2,841]) by BSA had better prognostic performance vs unindexed measures (healthy/overweight: C-statistic 0·656 vs 0·618, average change in Akaike Information Criteria (ΔAIC) 800; underweight: C-statistic 0·669 vs 0·654, ΔAIC 15; obese: C-statistic 0·630 vs 0·612, ΔAIC 113). Indexation by other body size metrics (lean body mass or height and/or weight raised to various powers) did not improve prognostic performance versus BSA by a clinically relevant magnitude (average C-statistic increase ≤0·01), with smaller differences in higher BMI subgroups. Similar results were obtained using sex-disaggregated analysis, for indexation of other aortic or cardiac dimension or volume measures, and for all-cause mortality.
INTERPRETATION Indexing measures of cardiac and aortic size by BSA improves prognostic performance regardless of BMI, and no other body size metric has a clinically meaningful better performance.
FUNDING This research was supported in part by grants (PI Ugander) from New South Wales Health, Heart Research Australia, and the University of Sydney.
Introduction
Quantification of the dimensions of the heart and great vessels using echocardiography has both diagnostic and prognostic value for the prediction of morbidity and mortality, which also may help guide treatment in patients.1–8 Currently, the recommended method for body size indexation of cardiac volumes is body surface area (BSA).9 However, there is heterogeneity in the literature as to the best indexation method, and whether or not indexing of cardiac measures improves their predictive value for cardiovascular events.6, 10–12 In underweight and overweight patients, correction for BSA can overestimate or underestimate the prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy, and inaccurately normalise or exaggerate indices of cardiac size.10 Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the physiological relationships between left ventricular mass and indexation methods. While the relationships between body surface area, height, and weight are non-linear, the indexation of left ventricular mass by these variables often assumes linear relationships.13 An argument can also be drawn from the theory of similarity, which reasons that relative geometries are best indexed to body size variables of similar dimensionality. For example, since left ventricular mass is related to cardiac dimensions raised to the third power, and BSA is related to a body dimension raised to the second power, it is logical that left ventricular mass should be proportional to BSA3/2 (also expressed as BSA1·5).14
Studies on indexation for prognostic performance have been limited in patient sample size and range of cardiac measures indexed.5, 15–18 Using the large-scale data available in the National Echocardiography Database of Australia (NEDA), the aim of the study was to derive one or more formulae based on height and weight to provide a method of body size indexation of cardiac and aortic measures that will be a better predictor of all-cause mortality than current methods based on body surface area.
Methods
Study design
NEDA is a large observational registry that includes routinely recorded echocardiographic data across 30 centres in Australia. Individual data linkage is used to incorporate health outcomes such as all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. The study cohort consists of patients over the age of 18 who have typically been referred clinically for imaging evaluation of known or suspected cardiovascular disease. The study was approved by the lead ethics committee at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (2019/ETH06989). NEDA is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12617001387314). Ethical approval has been obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committees at the respective recruiting sites, and the study adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki.
Study cohort
Echocardiographic data and basic patient characteristics were collected from participating centres from 1 January 2000 to 21 May 2019, and were transferred into a central database via an automated data extraction process. All data was cleaned through removal of duplicate, inconsistent, and/or impossible measurements, and transformed into a standardized format. Individuals contributing to NEDA were assigned a unique identifier linked to their echocardiograms and their anonymity protected by stringent security protocols. As shown in Figure 1, 631,824 patients were present in the database. Of these, 77,125 (12%) were excluded for prior valve replacement. Echocardiograms with time from echocardiography to census or death, cause of mortality (cardiovascular and all-cause), height, weight, and the cardiac measure of interest were selected. Different populations were individually filtered for each measure of interest and analysed to maximise the number of patients for analysis. For patients with multiple echocardiograms, the earliest recorded echocardiogram was selected. Patients were grouped according to body mass index (BMI) <18·5 kg/m2, BMI 18·5-30 kg/m2, or BMI ≥30 kg/m2.
Endpoints
The primary endpoints of interest were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Mortality data was obtained by linkage with the National Death Index.19 A detailed probability matching process involving patient identifiers obtained at echocardiographic recording was used to link survival status of individuals up to the study census date of 21 May 2019. Listed causes of death were described using ICD-10 coding, which allowed for cardiovascular death to be defined (range 100-199 ICD-10AM chapter codes).20
Statistical analysis
NEDA data analyses and reports were generated in agreement with STROBE guidelines.21 All data used in analyses were provided and no missing data was imputed. Standard procedures for describing grouped data, such as median [interquartile range (IQR)], and proportions according to patient characteristics were applied.
Cox-proportional hazard models with proportional hazards confirmed by visual inspection and numerical analysis of Schoenfeld residuals were used to derive C-statistics and hazard- ratios (with 95% confidence intervals) for the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality for the entirety of the study follow-up and a five year follow-up duration. The change in Akaike information criterion (ΔAIC) was used to interpret the statistical robustness of the body size indexation metrics. Due to the magnification of ΔAIC by large sample sizes, the C- statistic was chosen to dictate the magnitude of difference between metrics and clinical relevance in a sample size independent fashion. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to visually inspect differences between indexation measures. An iterative function was coded to derive 50,000 combinations of body size metrics using different height and weight exponents according to the formula where a given body size metric = height^x • weight^y. Random combinations of x and y were used as the metric for indexation for the respective echocardiographic measures for subsequent Cox-regression analysis. Cox-regression was performed using the echocardiographic measure indexed by the derived body size metric with five-year cardiovascular mortality as the endpoint to obtain the C-statistic. The C-statistic was color coded in a scatterplot to present differences in the prognostic strength of different body size metrics including BSA as calculated according to Mosteller22or Du Bois23, lean body mass formulas by Hume24, Boer25, or James26, BSA raised to various powers, and height and/or weight raised to various powers. All statistical analyses was performed using R 4.0.4 (R Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).27 Significance was accepted at the level of p<0.05 (two-sided).
Results
Study Cohort
Subject characteristics and size of the study cohorts for various cardiac and aortic measures are presented in Table 1. Due to the large sample size, differences in baseline characteristics between BMI groups were statistically significant but were not of a clinically meaningful magnitude.
Body size metrics and mortality
Across the echocardiographic measures of left atrial area (n=136,989), right atrial area (n=81,699), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (n=337,481) and mass (n=330,959), right ventricular end-diastolic diameter (n=3,575), and aortic sinus diameter (n=125,130), indexation by BSA as calculated by Mosteller had an average C- statistic increase from 0·656 to 0·618 for the healthy/overweight cohort (average change in Akaike Information Criteria (ΔAIC) 800), an increase from 0·669 to 0·654 for the underweight cohort (ΔAIC 15), and an increase from 0·630 vs 0·612 for the obese cohort (ΔAIC 113) compared to unindexed measures as shown in Table 2.22 Indexation by other body size metrics yielded a C-statistic increase ≤0·01. Further sex-disaggregated analysis did not differ upon visual inspection, and numerical differences between BSA and the best body size indexation metric were not clinically meaningful (average C-statistic increase ≤0·02, detailed data not shown). Smaller differences in C-statistic between indexation metrics were observed in higher BMI subgroups. Similar results were obtained using long-term cardiovascular mortality not limited to five years, and both long-term and five year all-cause mortality (Appendix 1-3). Similar trends were observed across indexation of other aortic dimensions (sinotubular junction, ascending, root, arch) and cardiac chamber volumes (left atrial end-systolic diameter and volume, left ventricular end-diastolic volume) (Appendix 4-33). Kaplan Meier curves did not show visually appreciable differences between indexation by BSA compared to indexation by weight across any measure (Appendix 34-48).
Figure 2 shows how indexation by different body size metrics (based on the formula height^x weight^y) perform prognostically, averaged across representative cardiac and aortic anatomical measure. The color scale shows increasing C-statistics, where each change in color represents one percentage point of C-statistic. Numerical values for selected measures are presented in Table 2. In summary, in the healthy/overweight cohort, indexation by BSA improves prognostic performance compared to unindexed measures by five percentage points of the C-statistic. Further improvement beyond BSA is limited to <1 percentage point improvement on average. Indexation by BSA yielded smaller improvements in prognostic performance in the underweight and obese cohort, but indexation by any other body size metric did not provide any meaningfully stronger association with survival. Further analyses in obese populations and higher BMI subgroups (BMI 30-35, 35-40 and >40) showed that BSA performed similarly to height raised to various powers (data not shown).
Relative prognostic strength of different cardiac and aortic size measures
Figure 3 shows the prognostic strength of indexing by BSA across all 14 cardiac and aortic measures analysed. In the healthy/overweight group, left atrial size and left ventricular mass had the highest prognostic strength, with a C-statistic ten percentage points higher than left ventricular size and most aortic dimensions. Right atrial and right ventricular sizes had an intermediate prognostic strength. Aortic sinus diameter had the strongest prognostic strength of all aortic measures, and aorta at sinotubular diameter had the weakest prognostic strength.
Discussion
In this study of body size indexation of cardiac and aortic sizes using real-world echocardiographic data from a large-scale nationwide cohort, indexation by BSA is shown to improve prognostic performance compared to unindexed measures regardless of BMI. Furthermore, no other body size indexation metric provided any meaningful improvement in prognostic performance beyond BSA. The current study comprehensively assessed indexation metrics with varying height and weight exponents in different forms (multiplicative, additive/subtractive, both), and in sex-specific cohorts. It was not possible to derive a body size metric with clinically meaningfully better prognostic performance than BSA. This means that using mortality as the arbiter of indexation effectiveness, no other indexation method exists that is clinically meaningfully better than BSA across all investigated cardiac measures. In accordance with current guidelines for echocardiography9, cardiac measures should continue to be indexed using any formula for BSA, regardless of BMI or the echocardiographic measure of interest.
Comparison with indexation by height
The current study found that indexation by height raised to various powers does not improve prognostic performance compared to BSA regardless of BMI. It has been suggested that indexation by height improves detection of left ventricular hypertrophy and associations with cardiovascular events and mortality compared to BSA in obese populations.12, 18, 28 Recently, it has been shown that indexation by height for left atrial volumes was able to maintain proportionality and avoid overcorrection for body size.29 However, other studies have found no improvement in indexation by height compared to BSA.5 The findings of the current study confirm that indexation by height does not provide additional prognostic value compared to indexation by BSA across any BMI group.
Sex differences
The current study found that indexation of cardiac measures disaggregated by sex does not improve prognostic peformance. Differences in left ventricular mass have been found between male and female patients.30, 31 A consideration of sex in the indexation of cardiac measures measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging has been suggested for improved prediction of incident heart failure.11 The current study analysed sex-specific cohorts and found that body size metrics derived from sex-specific cohorts were interchangeable with negligible differences in prognostic performance. Thus, the findings of the current study suggest that the relationship between cardiac or aortic size and survival in relation to body size does not fundamentally differ between the sexes. Notably, this is still consistent with using sex-specific cut-offs for normality for a given measure.
Relative prognostic association for different aortic or cardiac size measures
The current study found that the prognostic strength of indexed echocardiographic measures varied markedly. Studies comparing prognostic strength of indexed measures are limited with most studies only investigating the prognostic strength of one or two measures.5, 6, 32 The current study found that left ventricular mass index and left atrial volume index had the highest prognostic strengths of any measure, with C-statistics broadly similar to those found in previous smaller studies.5 Right atrial and right ventricular sizes, and the dimensions of the pulmonic valve expressed as RVOT diameter had moderate prognostic strength that has yet to be evaluated in literature. The current study was the first to compare the prognostic strength of different indexed aortic sizes. Furthermore, when indexed to body size, aortic sinus diameter is the only aortic size measure with good prognostic performance, and other aortic sizes have a considerably weaker association with prognosis. Notably, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter or volume, both measures of left ventricular dilatation, had among the weakest associations with prognosis.
Strengths and limitations
The limitations of applying and interpreting big data in NEDA have been acknowledged previously.20, 33 At the time of analysis, NEDA did not include important clinical details of common conditions such as coronary artery disease, ischaemic heart disease, and clinically diagnosed HF, which may impact mortality. That said, the current study used large-scale, real-world data with relevant clinical outcomes that inevitably have measurement variability between centres and observers. While on one hand this is a limitation as an uncontrolled source of data heterogeneity, it is in fact a strength that reinforces the integrity of observed trends that exist despite sources of variability.
The main endpoint of consideration, cardiovascular mortality, was linked from the Australian National Death Index which has a high sensitivity and specificity (93% and 90%, respectively) validating its use as the primary endpoint.19 Furthermore, in the current study, similar trends were also observed across all-cause mortality, further reinforcing the validity of the results.
The current study did not include the impact of age on aortic size or mortality. An increase in age has long been established to be related to an increased aortic size, which would affect interpretation of the indexed measure.34, 35 The association between age and mortality is both intuitive and widely accepted.36, 37 However, a consideration of age in choice of body size indexation metric is impractical clinically, and fails to achieve the goal of indexation, namely, to account for body size. A consideration of age is more appropriate for cut-off values of the indexed cardiac and aortic size measure, but not necessarily for the choice of body size indexation metric. Importantly, similar age distributions existed between the respective cohorts in the current study. Thus, while theoretically attractive, consideration of the effect of age is beyond the scope of this study.
The NEDA cohort comprises patients being investigated for known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Data was largely obtained from specialist centres or clinics in Australia. While the NEDA cohort is representative of the diverse and multiethnic population in Australia with a largely high-functioning level of health care, applicability may be different in other contexts.
In conclusion, the current study has definitively demonstrated that measures of cardiac and aortic size should continue to be indexed by BSA regardless of BMI. No other existing or derived body size metric (lean body mass or height and/or weight raised to various powers) is clinically meaningfully better.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript (unless otherwise specified). Supplementary data in the present study is available upon reasonable request to the authors.
Appendix