4.2 Article

Prevalence of myocardial hypertrophy in a population of asymptomatic Swedish Maine coon cats

期刊

ACTA VETERINARIA SCANDINAVICA
卷 50, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-50-22

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Maine coon cats have a familial disposition for developing hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) with evidence of an autosomal dominant mode of inheritance [1]. The current mode to diagnose HCM is by use of echocardiography. However, definite reference criteria have not been established. The objective of the study was to determine the prevalence of echocardigraphic changes consistent with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in Swedish Maine coon cats, and to compare echocardiographic measurements with previously published reference values. Methods: All cats over the age of 8 months owned by breeders living in Stockholm, listed on the website of the Maine Coon breeders in Sweden by February 2001, were invited to participate in the study. Physical examination and M-mode and 2D echocardiographic examinations were performed in all cats. Results: Examinations of 42 asymptomatic Maine coon cats (10 males and 32 females) were performed. The age of the cats ranged from 0,7 to 9,3 years with a mean of 4,8 +/- 2,3 years. Four cats (9,5%) had a diastolic interventricular septal (IVSd) or left ventricular free wall (LVPWd) thickness exceeding 6,0 mm. In 3 of these cats the hypertrophy was segmental. Two cats (4,8%) had systolic anterior motion (SAM) of the mitral valve without concomitant hypertrophy. Five cats (11,9%) had IVSd or LVPWd exceeding 5,0 mm but less than 6,0 mm. Conclusion: Depending on the reference values used, the prevalence of HCM in this study varied from 9,5% to 26,2%. Our study suggests that the left ventricular wall thickness of a normal cat is 5,0 mm or less, rather than 6,0 mm, previously used by most cardiologists. Appropriate echocardiographic reference values for Maine coon cats, and diagnostic criteria for HCM need to be further investigated.

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

4.2
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