Vaitkus P T, Kussmaul W G
Cardiovascular Division, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104.
Am Heart J. 1991 Nov;122(5):1431-41. doi: 10.1016/0002-8703(91)90587-8.
Distinguishing constrictive pericarditis from restrictive cardiomyopathy is a difficult clinical challenge. We review published reports in which hemodynamic criteria were used to differentiate these two diagnoses. There were 82 cases of constriction and 37 cases of restriction. The overall predictive accuracy of the difference between right and left ventricular end-diastolic pressures (RVEDP and LVEDP), RV systolic pressure, and the ratio of RVEDP to RV systolic pressure were 85%, 70%, and 76%, respectively. If all three criteria were concordant, the probability of having correctly classified the patient was greater than 90%. However, one fourth of patients could not be classified by hemodynamic criteria. There are few data to support the use of hemodynamic measurements after exercise or volume infusion to separate these two groups. Numerous recent studies have reported on the ability of left ventriculography, Doppler echocardiography, or radionuclide angiography to distinguish constriction from restriction. Many of the proposed indices appear promising, but these studies suffer from small sample size, potential selection bias, and complexity of the proposed criteria, which have limited their widespread application. New imaging technologies, such as CT scanning or MRI have been applied in a limited number of cases, but appear to be a sensitive means of detecting abnormal pericardium. Endomyocardial biopsy has proven useful in establishing the diagnosis of infiltrative cardiomyopathies, eliminating in those cases the need for surgical intervention. The finding of myocarditis must be considered a nonspecific finding that does not preclude thoracotomy. Since constrictive pericarditis is a surgically curable condition, the distinction between constrictive and restrictive disease is of critical importance. Taking into account the relative contribution of data derived from hemodynamic, imaging,and biopsy studies, we propose an algorithm for the selection of appropriate candidates for pericardial biopsy and stripping.
鉴别缩窄性心包炎与限制型心肌病是一项艰巨的临床挑战。我们回顾了已发表的使用血流动力学标准来区分这两种诊断的报告。其中有82例缩窄性心包炎病例和37例限制型心肌病病例。右心室和左心室舒张末期压力差(RVEDP和LVEDP)、右心室收缩压以及RVEDP与右心室收缩压之比的总体预测准确率分别为85%、70%和76%。如果所有这三个标准都一致,正确分类患者的概率大于90%。然而,四分之一的患者无法通过血流动力学标准进行分类。几乎没有数据支持在运动或容量输注后使用血流动力学测量来区分这两组疾病。最近有许多研究报道了左心室造影、多普勒超声心动图或放射性核素血管造影区分缩窄与限制的能力。许多提出的指标看起来很有前景,但这些研究存在样本量小、潜在选择偏倚以及所提标准复杂等问题,限制了它们的广泛应用。CT扫描或MRI等新的成像技术已在少数病例中应用,但似乎是检测心包异常的一种敏感方法。心内膜心肌活检已被证明有助于确立浸润性心肌病的诊断,在这些病例中无需进行手术干预。心肌炎的发现必须被视为非特异性发现,并不排除开胸手术。由于缩窄性心包炎是一种可通过手术治愈的疾病,区分缩窄性和限制性疾病至关重要。考虑到来自血流动力学、影像学和活检研究的数据的相对贡献,我们提出了一种算法,用于选择合适的心包活检和心包剥脱术候选人。