4.2 Review

Atrial myxomas: Pathologic types, tumor location, and presenting symptoms

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 435-440

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8191.2006.00265.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Atrial myxoma is the most common cardiac neoplasm. Although not widely reported, two anatomic types have been observed: solid and papillary. We examined whether differences in gross or microscopic appearance and location correlated with symptomatology, specifically congestive heart failure (CHF), neurologic symptoms, and embolic events. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of atrial myxomas removed from 1972 to 2002, recording the clinical presentation, diagnostic modality, tumor location, gross, and microscopic features for each patient. Twenty-six patients (16 females and 10 males) had atrial myxomas excised. Two patients (one female and one male) were excluded due to unavailable pathologic slides. Results: In 24 patients there were 15 solid and 9 papillary tumors. CHF was more prevalent in solid myxomas, while neurologic symptoms and embolic events were more common in papillary tumors. Tumor location further correlated with presenting symptoms. Ninety-two percent of patients presenting with CHF had tumors attached to the atrial septum. Extraseptal myxomas more frequently presented with neurologic (80% vs. 29%) and embolic features (50% vs. 25%). All patients exhibiting clefted tumor surface had a history of embolization. A higher percentage of solid myxomas (93%) showed hemorrhage within the tumor than with papillary (56%). Conclusions: CHF was more common with solid myxomas, and neurologic and embolization events were more common in the papillary type. Septal tumor location showed strong association with CHF, while extraseptal location correlated with neurologic events. We speculate that the various gross and microscopic patterns reflect secondary changes within these neoplasms over the course of their natural history.

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