Division of Cardiology Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago IL.
Department of Preventive Medicine (Biostatistics) Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Chicago IL.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Sep 15;9(18):e015699. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.015699. Epub 2020 Sep 4.
Background After sudden cardiac death in people aged <40 years, heart weight is a surrogate for cardiomegaly and a marker for cardiomyopathy. However, thresholds for cardiomegaly based on heart weight have not been validated in a cohort of cases of sudden cardiac death in young people. Methods and Results We surveyed medical examiner offices to determine which tools were used to assess heart weight norms. The survey determined that there was no gold standard for cardiomegaly (52 centers reported 22 different methods). We used a collection of heart weight data from sudden deaths in the Northwestern Sudden Death Collaboration (NSDC) to test the 22 methods. We found that the methods reported in our survey had little consistency: they classified between 18% and 81% of NSDC hearts with cardiomegaly. Therefore, we obtained biometric and postmortem data from a reference population of 3398 decedents aged <40 years. The reference population was ethnically diverse and had no known cardiac pathology on autopsy or histology. We derived and validated a multivariable regression model to predict normal heart weights and a threshold for cardiomegaly (upper 95% CI limit) in the young reference population (the Chicago model). Using the new model, the prevalence of cardiomegaly in hearts from the NSDC was 19%. Conclusions Medical examiner offices use a variety of tools to classify cardiomegaly. These approaches produce inconsistent results, and many overinterpret cardiomegaly. We recommend the model proposed to classify postmortem cardiomegaly in cases of sudden cardiac death in young people.
背景 在年龄<40 岁的人群发生心源性猝死(SCD)后,心脏重量可作为心脏扩大的替代指标和心肌病的标志物。然而,基于心脏重量的心脏扩大阈值尚未在年轻人 SCD 病例队列中得到验证。
方法和结果 我们调查了法医办公室,以确定用于评估心脏重量正常值的工具。该调查确定,心源性肥大(cardiomegaly)没有金标准(52 个中心报告了 22 种不同的方法)。我们使用西北 SCD 协作组(NSDC)中 SCD 死亡的心脏重量数据来测试这 22 种方法。我们发现,我们调查中报告的方法一致性较差:它们将 NSDC 心脏中 18%至 81%的心脏归类为心源性肥大。因此,我们从一个年龄<40 岁的 3398 名死者的参考人群中获得了生物计量和死后数据。该参考人群种族多样,尸检或组织学上无已知的心脏病理学。我们得出并验证了一个多变量回归模型,以预测年轻参考人群中正常心脏重量和心源性肥大(95%CI 上限)的阈值(芝加哥模型)。使用新模型,NSDC 心脏中心源性肥大的患病率为 19%。
结论 法医办公室使用多种工具来分类心源性肥大。这些方法产生不一致的结果,并且许多方法过度解释了心源性肥大。我们建议使用提出的模型来分类年轻人 SCD 病例的死后心源性肥大。