PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11096547

Restrictive Cardiomyopathy.

Abstract

Of the three major functional categories of cardiomyopathies (dilated, hypertrophic, and restrictive), the restrictive cardiomyopathies (RCMs) are the least common in the Western world, but unfortunately often are associated with the greatest morbidity and mortality. Infiltrative disease of the myocardium (often caused by amyloidosis) is a common cause of RCMs and has a significantly lower long-term survival rate when compared to cardiomyopathies of various other causes. Treatment of the RCM is, in general, difficult and often ineffective. Because of the abnormalities of diastolic filling that are characteristic of this condition, general measures to reduce venous and systemic congestion such as with the use of diuretics, are desirable but often result in an attendant reduction in stroke volume and cardiac output. Digoxin, calcium channel blocking drugs, and beta-adrenergic blocking agents are of limited value, although they may be used with benefit to control the heart rate response in the subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are generally ineffective in RCM. Targeted therapy directed against specific causal entities (such as the use of somatostatin analogues in carcinoid syndrome or iron chelation with desferrioxamine in hemochromatosis) may be more effective than simple symptomatic therapy. Differentiation of RCM from constrictive pericarditis is crucial, since constriction may be treated effectively by surgical removal of the thickened pericardium. A limited number of patients appear to have benefited from novel treatment strategies, such as autologous stem cell transplant in amyloidosis, balloon valvuloplasty of stenotic tricuspid or pulmonary valves in cardiac carcinoid syndrome, and cardiac transplantation. Truly effective therapy for RCM is generally lacking, and the best chance for optimizing the clinical outcome is early detection and aggressive medical treatment in an attempt to maintain the highest possible level of patient function for as long as possible.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G Artz, J Wynne. 2000. Restrictive Cardiomyopathy.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-000-0038-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗