4.3 Article

Clinical presentation and long-term follow-up of perimyocarditis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 235-241

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0b013e328351da6e

Keywords

natural history; perimyocarditis; prognosis; relapses; therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The natural history of perimyocarditis (PMY) is not yet completely known. We aimed to analyse the clinical laboratory data of PMY at diagnosis and during follow-up, in order to assess the natural history and prognostic stratification of the disease (including different aetiology). Methods We enrolled 62 consecutive patients (men 79%, aged 38 +/- 18 years) with PMY (84% idiopathic, 8% autoimmune, 8% infective) from August 2002 to July 2010. The diagnosis has been made according to clinical and laboratory data (significant increase of troponin I in all patients). After at least 1 year (mean follow-up: 1635 +/- 298 days), 59 patients (95%) had available data. Results Chest pain was present in 59 patients (95%), flu-like syndrome in 36 (58%) and pericardial rubs in 15 (24%). None of the patients showed heart failure at presentation. At admission, eight patients (13%) presented mild-moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction, 13 (22%) showed wall motion abnormalities, and 10 (17%) showed mild pericardial effusion. At 1 year no patients died, developed heart failure or showed abnormal echocardiogram. NSAIDs were the first choice therapy in 61 (98%) patients with clinical resolution in 58 (95%) of them. Seven patients (12%) experienced intermittent recurrences without development of constrictive pericarditis or heart failure. Conclusion This study underlines the benign mid-to long-term outcome of PMY regardless of clinical laboratory characteristics at presentation, different aetiology and possibility of relapses; minimizing the role of endomyocardial biopsy in these specific patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available