4.2 Article

Echocardiographic evaluation of cardiac functions and left ventricular mass in children with malnutrition

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 14-17

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE ASIA
DOI: 10.1046/j.1440-1754.2001.00566.x

关键词

cardiac functions; left ventricular mass; protein energy malnutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study was undertaken to assess the left ventricular mass (LV Mass) and systolic and diastolic functions of the left ventricle in children with protein energy malnutrition (PEM). Methodology: Thirty children, aged between 2 months and 2 years with PEM (four kwashiorkor, seven marasmickwashiorkor, 19 marasmus), and 17 healthy, age-matched children, using Doppler echocardiography were studied. Results: The mean LV Mass in the patients was lower than that in the controls (14.5 +/- 5.2 vs 19.8 +/- 4.7 g, P < 0.05). However, the LV Mass/body surface area was not different in the patients with PEM and in the control group (52 +/- 9.2 vs 53.9 +/- 8.2g/m(2), P > 0.05), indicating that LV Mass was reduced in proportion to decrease in body size in malnutrition. Left ventricular septal and posterior wall thickness in PEM were also lower than that in the controls, and the most significant reduction in the LV Mass, septal and posterior wall thickness were found in the kwashiorkor group. Cardiac output was reduced in proportion to decrease in body size in the patient group (1.6 +/- 0.5 vs 2.1 +/- 0.8 L/min, P < 0.05), therefore cardiac index was not significantly different between the patients and the control subjects (5.9 +/- 1.4 vs 5.7 +/- 1.6 L/min/m(2), P > 0.05). Systolic function indices including ejection fraction, fractional shortening, and diastolic function indices were not significantly different in the groups. Conclusions: We demonstrated that LV Mass and cardiac output were reduced in proportion to decrease in body size in patients with PEM, and LV systolic and diastolic functions were preserved in atrophic hearts.

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