PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12555129

Concentric versus eccentric remodeling.

Abstract

Cardiac hypertrophy has long been recognized as one of the heart's mechanisms for compensating a pressure or volume overload. This compensation has often been viewed as a feedback loop in which the concentric hypertrophy, which develops in pressure overload, normalizes wall stress while the eccentric hypertrophy, which develops in volume overload, allows for an increase in total stroke volume to compensate that which is lost from regulation. While the concentric hypertrophy of pressure overload often is compensatory, many examples are noted where either too little hypertrophy occurs to normalize stress or in other cases, in which hypertrophy exceeds the amount needed for normalization. These observations invoke nonmechanical mechanisms which modulate the degree to which the mechanical signal of pressure overload is translated into an increase in myocardial mass. Hypertrophy develops when the rate of myocardial protein synthesis exceeds that of protein degradation. It now appears that in pressure overload this imbalance is created as synthesis rate increases while in volume overload hypertrophy appears to accrue because degradation rate decreases.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Blase A Carabello. 2002. Concentric versus eccentric remodeling.. https://doi.org/10.1054/jcaf.2002.129250

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Transvalvular Flow Rate is Associated With Mortality Rate and Lifetime Loss in Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

Low-flow states are associated with adverse outcomes in aortic stenosis (AS), but the prognostic value of transvalvular flow rate (TFR) has not been consistently established across studies. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies (published by November 14, 2025) comparing low versus normal TFR in AS. Data were collected from Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Survival was assessed using pooled Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression, flexible parametric survival models, and restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis. A total of 9 studies including 6,494 patients were analyzed; 2,575 (39.7%) had low TFR. At 8 years of follow-up, estimated survival was 34.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.7% to 47%) in the low-TFR group and 63% (95% CI 58.9% to 67.4%) in the normal-TFR group. Low TFR was associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.59, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.74, p < 0.001). We observed a progressively greater hazard over time, with the hazard ratio approaching 1.9 by 8 years. At 8 years, RMST in the normal-TFR group was 7.37 years (95% CI 7.21 to 7.53 years) versus 5.07 years (95% CI 4.91 to 5.23 years) in the low-TFR group, representing a lifetime loss of 2.3 years in the low-TFR group (&#x394;RMST -2.30 years, 95% CI -2.53 to -2.07 years, p < 0.001). In patients with AS, low TFR is associated with significantly higher mortality and lifetime loss. These findings support TFR as a clinically meaningful marker for risk stratification in AS.

Aortic Valve Stenosis↗