4.3 Article

Patterns of left ventricular remodeling in patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: a cardiac MRI study of ventricular geometry, global function, and strain

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10554-010-9781-2

关键词

Duchenne; Cardiac MRI; Dilated Cardiomyopathy; LVRI; MVR

资金

  1. Children's Heart Association of Cincinnati
  2. Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy
  3. NIH [HL069712]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cardiac disease ubiquitously associated in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) has traditionally been considered a progressive dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). However, left ventricular (LV) dilatation as measured with cardiac MRI has not been a consistent finding in this population, even as circumferential strain (epsilon(cc)) declines with advancing disease. We hypothesized that a distinct pattern of changes in LV geometry, during the course of epsilon(cc) decline, distinguishes DMD associated heart disease from DCM. Using CMR, LV end-diastolic volume (EDV), mass (LVM), ejection fraction, epsilon(cc) and myocardial delayed enhancement (MDE) were determined in DMD patients and normal control subjects. The LV Remodeling Index (LVRI) was calculated as the ratio of LV Mass to Volume (LVM/EDV). Statistical comparisons between all LV parameters and genotype were also performed. Median LVRI in DMD (n = 127) and control subjects (n = 41) were different (0.75 vs. 0.65, P = 0.0150) but within normal range. Furthermore, the median LVRI in DMD boys with reduced LV systolic function was significantly reduced compared to those with normal LV systolic function (0.64 vs. 0.75, P = 0.0974). However, the presence of MDE was associated with a lower median LVRI (0.57 vs. 0.76, P = 0.0471). Regression analysis showed no significant correlation between epsilon(cc) and LVRI (r = -0.03). The LVRI of DMD patients is unexpectedly normal and not correlated with epsilon(cc.) Based on these findings, DMD-associated heart disease exhibits a unique remodeling pattern distinct from DCM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据