4.3 Article

Trypanosoma cruzi burden, genotypes, and clinical evaluation of Chilean patients with chronic Chagas cardiopathy

Journal

PARASITOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 114, Issue 8, Pages 3007-3018

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00436-015-4503-2

Keywords

Chagasic cardiopaths; Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs; Parasite burden; Genotypes

Categories

Funding

  1. FONDECYT [1120382, 1100768]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There are currently no biomarkers to assess which patients with chronic indeterminate Chagas disease will develop heart disease and which will spend their entire life in this state. We hypothetize that the parasite burden and Trypanosoma cruzi genotypes are related to the presence of heart disease in patients with Chagas disease. This study is aimed to investigate the parasite burden and T. cruzi genotypes in chagasic cardiopaths versus chagasic individuals without cardiac involvement according to the New York Heart Association. Patients with chronic Chagas disease, 50 with and 50 without cardiopathy (controls), groups A and B, respectively, were submitted to anamnesis, physical examination, and electrocardiogram. Echo-Doppler was performed for group A; all important known causes of cardiopathy were discarded. Xenodiagnosis, conventional PCR, and quantitative PCR were performed on patients of both groups. T. cruzi genotyping was done for 25 patients of group A and 20 of group B. The 50 cardiopaths had 80 electrocardiographic alterations, most of them in grade II of the New York Heart Association classification; 49 were classified in grade I by Echo-Doppler, and only one patient was in grade III. The difference in average parasitemia in patients of groups A and B was not significant. The most frequent T. cruzi DTU found was TcV. The parasite burden and genotype of the groups with and without cardiopathy were similar. Figure 2 Chronic Chagas cardiopathy microaneurism of left ventricle. Cineangiography.

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