4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Evidence-based diagnosis of familial non-X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy - Prevalence, inheritance and characteristics

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 73-81

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1053/euhj.2000.2171

关键词

non-X-linked; evidence-based familial; dilated cardiomyopathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To assess the prevalence of familial non-X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy, to diagnose early asymptomatic cases evaluate inheritance and characterize clinical phenotypes. Methods and Results We screened 472 relatives of 104 consecutive patients diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy; males with X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy were excluded based on systematic immunohistochemical and molecular analysis. Relatives underwent clinical examination, electrocardiography, echocardiography and serum creatine-phosphokinase determination. Twenty-six index patients (25%) had familial disease: four youths (less than or equal to 20 years) had rapidly progressive outcome and underwent emergency transplantation. In a sib-pair, the onset was with atrioventricular block. Inheritance was autosomal dominant in 15, undetermined in seven (four sib-pairs); mitochondrial DNA pathological mutations were found in four. The screening identified 23 newly diagnosed relatives in the familial group. Transplantation (P=0.04) and atrial fibrillation (P=0.04) were more frequent, and left bundle branch block (P=0.04) less frequent in index patients with familial than in those with non-familial disease. Several nonaffected relatives had instrumental abnormalities potentially useful as pre-clinical markers: their prevalence was similar in both groups. Conclusions The prevalence of familial, non X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy was 25%. The immediate benefits of screening family members of index patients was early diagnosis in unaware symptomless affected relatives. (Eur Heart J 2001; 22: 73-81, doi:10.1053/euhj.2000.2171) (C) 2001 The European Society of Cardiology.

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

4.7
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