OBJECTIVE: To study the pathologic features of dilated heart in cardiac transplant recipients, with clinicoradiologic correlation. METHODS: Sixty recipient hearts from cardiac transplantation performed in Fuwai Hospital were analyzed by gross examination, histologic observation and electron microscopy. Clinicoradiologic correlation was available in 40 cases. RESULTS: Amongst the 40 cases of dilated heart, 52.5% (21/40) were due to dilated cardiomyopathy, 22.5% (9/40) due to arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, 15.0% (6/40) due to ischemic cardiomyopathy, and the remaining 10.0% (4/40) due to miscellaneous causes, including local noncompaction of ventricular myocardium, giant cell myocarditis, alcoholic cardiomyopathy and hypertensive cardiomyopathy. The discrepancy rate between clinical and pathologic diagnosis was 37.5% (15/40). The erroneous categories included arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (7 cases), ischemic cardiomyopathy (5 cases), and giant cell myocarditis (1 case), which were all mistaken clinically as dilated cardiomyopathy. While ischemic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, noncompaction of ventricular myocardium and giant cell myocarditis have distinctive pathologic features, the diagnosis of alcoholic and hypertensive cardiomyopathies required clinicopathologic correlation. Dilated cardiomyopathy due to viral myocarditis was not identified in the cases studied. CONCLUSION: Pathologic examination is essential in analysis of transplant recipient heart and helps to rectify clinical diagnostic discrepancy.
OBJECTIVE: To study the pathologic features of dilated heart in cardiac transplant recipients, with clinicoradiologic correlation. METHODS: Sixty recipient hearts from cardiac transplantation performed in Fuwai Hospital were analyzed by gross examination, histologic observation and electron microscopy. Clinicoradiologic correlation was available in 40 cases. RESULTS: Amongst the 40 cases of dilated heart, 52.5% (21/40) were due to dilated cardiomyopathy, 22.5% (9/40) due to arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, 15.0% (6/40) due to ischemic cardiomyopathy, and the remaining 10.0% (4/40) due to miscellaneous causes, including local noncompaction of ventricular myocardium, giant cell myocarditis, alcoholic cardiomyopathy and hypertensive cardiomyopathy. The discrepancy rate between clinical and pathologic diagnosis was 37.5% (15/40). The erroneous categories included arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (7 cases), ischemic cardiomyopathy (5 cases), and giant cell myocarditis (1 case), which were all mistaken clinically as dilated cardiomyopathy. While ischemic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, noncompaction of ventricular myocardium and giant cell myocarditis have distinctive pathologic features, the diagnosis of alcoholic and hypertensive cardiomyopathies required clinicopathologic correlation. Dilated cardiomyopathy due to viral myocarditis was not identified in the cases studied. CONCLUSION: Pathologic examination is essential in analysis of transplant recipient heart and helps to rectify clinical diagnostic discrepancy.