Cardiovascular Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Cardiovascular Institute, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Am J Cardiol. 2022 Sep 15;179:83-89. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.06.018. Epub 2022 Jul 29.
We postulated that familial idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (F-IDC) is associated with a worse prognosis than nonfamilial IDC (nonF-IDC). Patients with F-IDC had either a strong family history and/or proved genetic mutations. We studied long-term prognosis (mean follow-up: 6.1 ± 4.1 years) of 162 patients with IDC (age: 55.5 ± 17.9 years, men: 57.8%, 50% F-IDC) with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death, left ventricular (LV) assist device implant, or heart transplantation. The secondary end point was a ventricular arrhythmia event. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, New York Heart Association class, medical therapy, and years of follow-up between the F-IDC and nonF-IDC groups. Patients with F-IDC were younger than patients with nonF-IDC (49.1 ± 17.0 years vs 61.6 ± 16.5 years, p <0.001). Mean LV ejection fraction was significantly lower in F-IDC group than in the nonF-IDC group (26 ± 12% vs 31 ± 12%, p = 0.022). The primary end point was achieved in 54 patients in F-IDC group (66.7%) versus 19 in the nonF-IDC group (23.5%) (p <0.001). The Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for the composite end point and for ventricular arrhythmia were significantly lower in the F-IDC versus nonF-IDC (log-rank p ≤0.001 and 0.04, respectively). F-IDC was the only multivariable predictor of the primary composite end point (hazard ratio 3.419 [95% confidence interval 1.845 to 6.334], p <0.001). The likelihood of LV remodeling manifested by LV ejection fraction improvement (≥10%) was significantly lower in F-IDC than nonF-IDC (27.1% vs 44.8%, p = 0.042). In conclusion, F-IDC is a predictor of mortality, need for LV assist device, or heart transplantation. F-IDC is associated with significantly lower event-free survival for primary end point and ventricular arrhythmia than nonF-IDC. F-IDC has significantly lower likelihood of LV reverse remodeling than nonF-IDC.
我们假设家族性特发性扩张型心肌病(F-IDC)的预后比非家族性 IDC(nonF-IDC)差。F-IDC 患者要么有强烈的家族史和/或已证实的基因突变。我们研究了 162 例植入式心脏复律除颤器或心脏再同步治疗的 IDC 患者(年龄:55.5 ± 17.9 岁,男性:57.8%,50%为 F-IDC)的长期预后(平均随访:6.1 ± 4.1 年)。主要终点是死亡、左心室(LV)辅助装置植入或心脏移植的复合终点。次要终点是室性心律失常事件。F-IDC 和 nonF-IDC 组之间,糖尿病、高血压、纽约心脏协会(NYHA)分级、药物治疗和随访年限的患病率无显著差异。F-IDC 组患者比 nonF-IDC 组年轻(49.1 ± 17.0 岁 vs 61.6 ± 16.5 岁,p <0.001)。F-IDC 组的平均左心室射血分数明显低于 nonF-IDC 组(26 ± 12% vs 31 ± 12%,p = 0.022)。F-IDC 组有 54 例(66.7%)患者达到主要终点,nonF-IDC 组有 19 例(23.5%)(p <0.001)。F-IDC 组的复合终点和室性心律失常的 Kaplan-Meier 生存估计明显低于 nonF-IDC 组(对数秩 p ≤0.001 和 0.04,分别)。F-IDC 是主要复合终点的唯一多变量预测因素(风险比 3.419 [95%置信区间 1.845 至 6.334],p <0.001)。F-IDC 比 nonF-IDC 左心室射血分数改善(≥10%)的左心室重构发生率明显更低(27.1% vs 44.8%,p = 0.042)。总之,F-IDC 是死亡率、需要 LV 辅助装置或心脏移植的预测因素。F-IDC 的主要终点和室性心律失常的无事件生存率明显低于 nonF-IDC。F-IDC 比 nonF-IDC 更不可能发生左心室逆重构。