Akiskal H S, Chen S E, Davis G C, Puzantian V R, Kashgarian M, Bolinger J M
J Clin Psychiatry. 1985 Feb;46(2):41-8.
Outpatients diagnosed as borderline (N = 100) were prospectively followed for 6-36 months and examined from phenomenologic developmental, and family history perspectives. At index evaluation, 66 met criteria for recurrent depressive, dysthymic, cyclothymic, or bipolar II disorders, and 16 for those of schizotypal personality. Other subgroups included sociopathic, somatization, panic-agoraphobic, attention deficit, epileptic, and identify disorders. Compared with nonborderline personality controls, borderlines had a significantly elevated risk for major affective but not for schizophrenic breakdowns during follow-up. Prominent substance abuse history, tempestuous biographies, and unstable early home environment were common to all diagnostic subgroups. In family history, borderlines were most like bipolar controls, and differed significantly from schizophrenic, unipolar, and personality controls. It is concluded that, despite considerable overlap with subaffective disorders, the current adjectival use of this rubric does not identify a specific psychopathologic syndrome.
对100名被诊断为边缘型人格障碍的门诊患者进行了为期6至36个月的前瞻性随访,并从现象学、发育和家族史角度进行了检查。在首次评估时,66人符合复发性抑郁、心境恶劣、环性心境或双相II型障碍的标准,16人符合分裂样人格障碍的标准。其他亚组包括反社会型、躯体化、惊恐-广场恐怖型、注意缺陷、癫痫型和身份障碍型。与非边缘型人格障碍对照组相比,边缘型人格障碍患者在随访期间出现重度情感障碍的风险显著升高,但出现精神分裂症发作的风险并未升高。所有诊断亚组都有明显的物质滥用史、动荡的经历和不稳定的早期家庭环境。在家族史方面,边缘型人格障碍患者最类似于双相情感障碍对照组,与精神分裂症、单相情感障碍和人格障碍对照组有显著差异。研究得出结论,尽管与亚情感障碍有相当大的重叠,但目前使用该分类的形容词形式并不能识别出一种特定的精神病理综合征。