Keren A, Gottlieb S, Tzivoni D, Stern S, Yarom R, Billingham M E, Popp R L
Heiden Department of Cardiology, Bikur Cholim Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel.
Circulation. 1990 Feb;81(2):506-17. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.81.2.506.
Prognosis in classically described dilated congestive cardiomyopathy has been reported to be related to ventricular size. Mildly dilated congestive cardiomyopathy (MDCM) has been defined as end-stage heart failure of unknown etiology (New York Heart Association class IV, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%), occurring with neither typical hemodynamic signs of restrictive myopathy nor significant ventricular dilatation (less than 15% above normal range). The present study includes follow-up in 12 nontransplant patients. In the first 4 months after diagnosis, two patients improved and are living, and two showed cardiac dilation and clinical deterioration and died. Six of the remaining eight with persistent MDCM died (four with intractable heart failure and two, sudden deaths) without change in ventricular size before death, despite medical therapy over 20 +/- 8 months. Eight comparable transplanted patients with persistent MDCM demonstrated improved total survival by life table analysis (p less than 0.05). A family history of congestive cardiomyopathy was found in nine of 16 patients (56%) with persistent MDCM. Nontransplant patients were older (p less than 0.02), but other findings were similar in the two groups. Endomyocardial biopsies available in 14 of 16 cases showed little or no myofibrillar loss in spite of severe hemodynamic impairment. The degree of myofibrillar loss did not correlate with hemodynamic parameters but showed good correlation with left ventricular size, that is, five of six patients with no myofibrillar loss had normal ventricular size, whereas all eight patients with mild myofibrillar loss had mild cardiomegaly (p less than 0.002). Our current experience suggests a somewhat variable but negative prognosis after prospective diagnosis of MDCM, with poor survival in patients with persistence of the original diagnostic features during follow-up. Preservation of heart size in MDCM is probably related to lack of significant myofibrillar loss. Thus, irrespective of heart size or myofibrillar preservation on biopsy, heart transplantation should be strongly considered in MDCM if signs of severe cardiac dysfunction persist despite therapy.
据报道,经典描述的扩张型充血性心肌病的预后与心室大小有关。轻度扩张型充血性心肌病(MDCM)被定义为病因不明的终末期心力衰竭(纽约心脏协会IV级,左心室射血分数小于30%),既无典型的限制性心肌病血流动力学体征,心室扩张也不显著(比正常范围高不到15%)。本研究纳入了12例未接受移植的患者进行随访。在诊断后的前4个月,2例患者病情改善并存活,2例出现心脏扩张和临床恶化并死亡。其余8例持续性MDCM患者中有6例死亡(4例死于顽固性心力衰竭,2例猝死),尽管接受了20±8个月的药物治疗,但死亡前心室大小无变化。8例具有可比性的持续性MDCM移植患者通过生命表分析显示总生存率有所提高(p<0.05)。16例持续性MDCM患者中有9例(56%)有充血性心肌病家族史。未接受移植的患者年龄较大(p<0.02),但两组的其他结果相似。16例中有14例可进行心内膜活检,尽管存在严重的血流动力学损害,但显示很少或没有肌原纤维丢失。肌原纤维丢失程度与血流动力学参数无关,但与左心室大小密切相关,即6例无肌原纤维丢失的患者中有5例心室大小正常,而8例有轻度肌原纤维丢失的患者均有轻度心脏扩大(p<0.002)。我们目前的经验表明,MDCM前瞻性诊断后的预后有所不同但呈阴性,随访期间仍保持原始诊断特征的患者生存率较低。MDCM中心脏大小的保持可能与肌原纤维丢失不显著有关。因此,无论活检时心脏大小或肌原纤维保存情况如何,如果尽管接受治疗仍存在严重心脏功能障碍的迹象,MDCM患者应强烈考虑进行心脏移植。