4.3 Review

The challenge of cardiomyopathies in 2007

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 545-554

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0b013e3282f2c9f9

关键词

cardiomyopathy; classification; dilated; genetic; hypertrophic

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR 00051-1575] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The last 20 years have seen impressive progress in the study of cardiomyopathies. The improved understanding of these diseases has made clear that cardiomyopathies are extremely complex entities that defy current classification standards. The 1980 and 1995 WHO/ISFC Task Forces, and very recently an American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Statement expert panel, have systematically approached new advances as well as emerging problems. In spite of this effort and an increasingly growing understanding of myocardial disorders, several issues remain unresolved. Without a doubt, the identification of genetic defects responsible for many forms of cardiomyopathies has changed our perspective of myocardial diseases. In fact, in the last few years, we have seen that (1) clinically defined cardiomyopathies, previously considered single entities, are actually the result of mutations in different genes, (2) different mutations in the same gene may be the cause of different clinical entities and (3) in the group of cardiomyopathies, a large phenotypic and genetic heterogeneity exists that is expected to increase in the future. Genotype knowledge is a fundamental advance in medicine and in particular in the field of cardiomyopathies and is becoming increasingly more important in clinical practice for disease diagnosis and prevention, prognostic stratification and possible future therapies. Knowledge of the phenotype, including clinical, morphological and physiological features, however, continues to provide the clinical basis for diagnosis and classification of cardiomyopathies, prognostic evaluation and symptomatic treatment, and should not be abandoned.

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

4.3
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