4.1 Article

Predictors of Long-Term Outcome in Children with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

期刊

PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 448-458

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00246-015-1298-y

关键词

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; Sudden cardiac death; Cardioverter-defibrillator; Heart failure; Heart transplant; Children

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date limited data are available to predict the progression to end-stage heart failure (HF) with subsequent death (non-SCD), need for heart transplantation, or sudden cardiac death (SCD) in children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). We aimed to determine predictors of long-term outcome in children with HCM. A total of 112 children (median 14.1, IQR 7.8-16.6 years) were followed up for the median of 6.5 years for the development of morbidity and mortality, including arrhythmic and HF-related secondary end points. HF end point included HF-related death or heart transplant, and arrhythmic end point included resuscitated cardiac arrest, appropriate ICD discharge, or SCD. Overall, 23 (21 %) patients reached the pre-defined composite primary end point. At 10-year follow-up, the event-free survival rate was 76 %. Thirteen patients (12 %) reached the secondary arrhythmic end point, and 10 patients (9 %) reached the secondary HF end point. In multivariate model, prior cardiac arrest (r = 0.658), QTc dispersion (r = 0.262), and NSVT (r = 0.217) were independent predictors of the arrhythmic secondary end point, while HF (r = 0.440), LV posterior wall thickness (r = 0.258), LA size (r = 0.389), and decreased early transmitral flow velocity (r = 0.202) were all independent predictors of the secondary HF end point. There are differences in the risk factors for SCD and for HF-related death in childhood HCM. Only prior cardiac arrest, QTc dispersion, and NSVT predicted arrhythmic outcome in patients aged < 18 years. LA size, LV posterior wall thickness, and decreased early transmitral flow velocity were strong independent predictors of HF-related events.

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

4.1
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