4.1 Article

Myocardial Fibrosis and Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Carriers Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging

期刊

PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 1495-1501

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00246-015-1192-7

关键词

Late gadolinium enhancement; Cardiomyopathy; Feature tracking; Myocardial strain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The goal of our study was to characterize the degree of myocardial fibrosis and left ventricular dysfunction in our cohort of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) carriers using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). Seventy percent of males with DMD have mothers who are carriers of the Xp21 mutation. Carrier phenotypic characteristics range from asymptomatic to left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and cardiomyopathy. The true prevalence of cardiac involvement in DMD carriers is unknown. We performed a retrospective observational study. All female DMD carriers who underwent clinical CMR studies at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center from December 6, 2006, to August 28, 2013, were evaluated. Patients underwent standard CMR assessment with LV function assessment and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). In addition, offline feature tracking strain analysis was performed on the basal, mid, and apical short axis. Twenty-two patients were studied, of which 20 underwent adequate testing for myocardial LGE. Four of 22 patients (18 %) were found to have LV dysfunction (ejection fraction < 55 %). Seven of 20 DMD carriers (35 %) were found to have LGE. The patients with evidence of LGE had an overall trend to lower absolute deformation parameters; however, this did not meet statistical significance when correcting for multiple comparisons. Our study demonstrates a high rate of LGE as well as LV dysfunction in DMD carriers. Cardiovascular and musculoskeletal symptoms were not statistically different between those with and without cardiac involvement. This study demonstrates the importance of surveillance CMR evaluation of DMD carriers.

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