| Literature DB >> 30921422 |
Marco Merlo1, Enrico Ammirati2, Piero Gentile1, Jessica Artico1, Antonio Cannatà1, Gherardo Finocchiaro3, Giulia Barbati4, Paola Sormani2, Marisa Varrenti2, Andrea Perkan1, Enrico Fabris1, Aneta Aleksova1, Rossana Bussani5, Duccio Petrella6, Manlio Cipriani2, Claudia Raineri7, Maria Frigerio2, Gianfranco Sinagra1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistent left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction in patients with acute lymphocytic myocarditis (LM) is widely unexplored.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30921422 PMCID: PMC6438511 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214616
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow diagram describing the selection of the study population.
EMB, Endomyocardial biopsy.
Baseline characteristics of study population divided on the basis of persistent left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction.
| Study population | Persistent LV dysfunction at follow-up | Normal LV function at follow-up | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (N = 48) | (N = 27, 56%) | (N = 21, 44%) | ||
| Age (years) | 38±16 | 43±14 | 32±15 | 0.03 |
| Age <15 (%) | 2 (4) | 1 (4) | 1 (5) | 0.856 |
| Male gender, n (%) | 25 (52) | 14 (52) | 11 (52) | 0.601 |
| Duration of symptoms (days) | 11 (5–26) | 20 (14–28) | 5 (3–6) | <0.001 |
| Admission Heart Rate (bpm) | 95±34 | 81±25 | 114±36 | 0.001 |
| Admission SBP (mmHg) | 103±21 | 110±16 | 87±23 | 0.002 |
| NYHA Class | ||||
| II | 17 (35) | 11 (41) | 7 (33) | 0.880 |
| III | 14 (29) | 12 (44) | 2 (10) | 0.008 |
| IV | 16 (33) | 4 (15) | 12 (60) | 0.001 |
| Fulminant forms, n (%) | 23 (48) | 6 (22) | 17 (81) | <0.001 |
| Flu-like symptoms, n (%) | 40 (83) | 20 (74) | 20 (95) | 0.087 |
| Increased CRP, n (%) | 24 (50) | 8 (30) | 16 (76) | <0.001 |
| Atrial Fibrillation, n (%) | 5 (10) | 1 (4) | 4 (19) | 0.09 |
| LBBB, n (%) | 3 (6) | 1 (4) | 2 (10) | 0.693 |
| 1st, 2nd, 3rd AV Blocks, n (%) | 7 (15) | 4 (15) | 3 (14) | 0.623 |
| LVEDD (mm) | 57±9 | 60±6 | 51±10 | <0.001 |
| Baseline LVEF (%) | 26±9 | 28±7 | 24±11 | 0.211 |
| LVEF at discharge (%) | 42±13 | 32±8 | 53±8 | <0.001 |
| Pericardial effusion, n (%) | 13 (27) | 4 (15) | 9 (43) | 0.039 |
| Poor lymphocytic Infiltrate | 15 (31) | 13 (48) | 2 (10) | 0.008 |
| Moderate-to severe fibrosis at EMB | 16 (33) | 10 (37) | 6 (29) | 0.550 |
| Beta-blockers at discharge, n (%) | 38 (79) | 25 (93) | 13 (62) | 0.012 |
| ACE-inhibitors-ARBs at discharge, n (%) | 43 (90) | 24 (89) | 19 (90) | 0.621 |
| Aldosterone receptors antagonist at discharge, n (%) | 18 (38) | 12 (44) | 6 (29) | 0.205 |
| Immunosuppressive therapy (%) | 35 (73) | 20 (74) | 15 (71) | 0.838 |
Values are expressed as mean±SD or median with interquartile range as appropriate, and as percentage.
ACE, angiotensin converting enzyme; ARBs, angiotensin receptor blockers; AV, atrioventricular; CRP, C-reactive protein; EMB: endomiocardial biopsy; LBBB, left bundle branch block; LM: lymphocytic myocarditis; LVEDD, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEF, ejection fraction; MR, mitral regurgitation; RFP, restrictive filling pattern; SBP, systolic blood pressure;
*vs. moderate to plentiful
Fig 2Histological images of three patients with acute LM presenting left ventricular dysfunction at admission.
A-B) Fulminant form with plentiful lymphocytic infiltrate and necrosis, he died during the acute phase (excluded from main analysis); C-D) Fulminant form with plentiful lymphocytic infiltrate, he normalized systolic function during follow-up (included in the main analysis); E-F) non-fulminant form with poor lymphocytic infiltrate, he will maintain LV dysfunction during follow-up (included in the main analysis). LM: Lymphocytic Myocarditis; LV: Left Ventricular. A) HE showing diffuse inflammatory infiltrates and myocardial necrosis. B)Immunohistochemistry showing diffuse CD8+ T cells infiltrates (in red). C) HE showing moderate inflammatory infiltrates and mild myocardial necrosis. D) Immunohistochemistry showing diffuse HLA-DR+ cells (in red). E) HE showing poor inflammatory infiltrates and myocardial necrosis. F) Immunohistochemistry showing mild HLA-DR+ cells (in brown).
Univariable and multivariable analyses for persistent LV systolic dysfunction.
| Univariable | Multivariable | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% C.I. | p | OR | 95% C.I. | p | |
| Age | 1.06 | 1.01–1.11 | 0.015 | |||
| Heart Rate | 0.96 | 0.93–0.98 | 0.001 | |||
| SBP | 1.10 | 1.020–1.192 | 0.014 | |||
| Baseline LVEDV | 1.02 | 1.00–1.04 | 0.018 | |||
| Pericardial Effusion | 0.18 | 0.04–0.80 | 0.024 | |||
| Baseline increased CRP | 0.089 | 0.02–0.39 | 0.001 | |||
SBP, systolic blood pressure; EF, ejection fraction; LVEDD, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; MR, mitral regurgitation; RFP, restrictive filling pattern; TAPSE, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion; IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; CRP, C-reactive protein; EMB, endomyocardial biopsy;
a. Odds ratio estimation is referred to every unit increase for continuous variables.
Fig 3Receiver operating curves analysis for baseline prediction model of persistent LV systolic dysfunction during follow-up.
The model including poor lymphocytic infiltrate + left ventricular end-diastolic diameter + non-fulminant myocarditis when surviving to the acute phase showed the highest accuracy. Legend. AUC, area under the ROC curve; CI, confidence interval; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction;
Fig 4Central illustration. Long-term D/HTx-free survival curves according to the persistent LV systolic dysfunction during follow-up.
The curves start from follow-up revaluation. Legend. LV: Left Ventricular; D/HTx: Death or Heart Transplantation.