4.5 Article

Cardiac muscle wasting in individuals with cancer cachexia

期刊

ESC HEART FAILURE
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 458-467

出版社

WILEY PERIODICALS, INC
DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.12184

关键词

Cancer cachexia; Weight loss; Heart weight; Cardiac function

资金

  1. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) [A/08/76145]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Cachexia is a severe complication of cancer that adversely affects the course of the disease and is associated with high rates of mortality. Patients with cancer manifest symptoms, such as fatigue, shortness of breath, and impaired exercise tolerance, which are clinical signs of chronic heart failure. The aim of this study was to evaluate cardiac muscle wasting in cancer individuals. Methods and results We retrospectively analysed 177 individuals who died of cancer, including 58 lung, 60 pancreatic, and 59 gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, and 42 cancer-free controls who died of other, non-cardiovascular reasons. Cancer cachexia (CC) was defined based on clinical and/or pathological diagnosis, body mass index (BMI) <20.0 kg/m(2) and/or oedema-free body weight loss of 5.0% during the previous year or less. The pathology reports were analysed for BMI, heart weight (HW), and left and right ventricular wall thicknesses (LVWT and RVWT, respectively). The analysis of clinical data included recording of biochemical parameters and medication data of study patients. CC was detected in 54 (30.5%) subjects. Individuals with CC had a significantly lower HW than non-cachectic subjects (363.1 +/- 86.2 vs. 447.0 +/- 128.9 g, P < 0.001) and control group (412.9 +/- 75.8 g, P < 0.05). BMI correlated with HW in cases with GI cancer (r = 0.44, P < 0.001), lung cancer (r = 0.53, P < 0.0001), and pancreatic cancer (r = 0.39, P < 0.01). Conclusions Body weight loss in individuals with lung, pancreatic, and GI cancers is accompanied by a decrease in HW. In patients with CC who receive cancer treatment, screening for cardiac muscle wasting may have clinical importance.

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

4.5
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