Discussion
Despite a meticulous diagnostic investigation, we uncovered a specific aetiology in a limited number of patients with initially unexplained dilated cardiomyopathy. The therapeutic consequences of extensive testing were modest. It is important to bear in mind, however, that we present results from a selected patient cohort in whom patient history, routine laboratory work-up, echocardiography and coronary angiography provided no clue to the aetiology. Thus, our results reflect the potential for extracting additional information after traditional diagnostic options have been exhausted.
The potential value of a diagnostic test in terms of prognostication or adjusted treatment must be weighed against monetary costs and complications. Cardiac MRI offers unparalleled image clarity and detail, but its widespread use is limited by availability, tolerability and costs. Endomyocardial biopsy incurs patient discomfort and moderate risk and is recommended only in patients presenting with severe heart failure and a very short duration of symptoms, failure to respond to treatment or associated ventricular arrhythmia.13 Twenty-four-hour ECG and cardiopulmonary exercise testing are low-cost, low-risk procedures, but the diagnostic and therapeutic yield is difficult to quantify.
MRI identified two cases of non-compaction cardiomyopathy not detected by echocardiography. Non-compaction cardiomyopathy is defined as a distinct entity in an ‘unclassified’ group of cardiomyopathies.1 However, it is unclear whether non-compaction cardiomyopathy is truly a separate disease, or merely a morphological trait shared by many cardiomyopathies.1 ,14 The diagnosis is usually made by echocardiography, but non-compaction cardiomyopathy can be difficult to differentiate from other causes of heart failure,15 with several proposed echocardiographic diagnostic criteria coexisting. MRI may offer better diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in this disease.9 Owing to a high risk of ensuing heart failure, thromboembolic events and arrhythmia,16 ,17 the use of oral anticoagulants and a low threshold for the implantation of an intracardiac defibrillator has been advocated in patients with non-compaction cardiomyopathy.
The use of LGE allows for the detection of ischaemia, fibrosis and inflammation by MRI.18 Unfortunately, gadolinium can induce nephrogenic systemic sclerosis in patients with renal failure, and its use is contraindicated in these patients.19 In approximately one-third of our patients, LGE was observed. Two cases of systemic inflammatory disease with cardiac involvement were discovered using this technique. Survival in patients with systemic inflammatory diseases and associated cardiomyopathy is on average lower than in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy,3 but depends on the category of the underlying disease.20 The therapeutic consequence of making a diagnosis of systemic inflammatory disease in these patients is substantial, as treatment is targeted at the underlying disease as well as the cardiac manifestations.
In our cohort, only one diagnosis made by endomyocardial biopsy did have therapeutic consequences. This patient had sarcoidosis, whereas a case of Wegener's granulomatosis was missed on endomyocardial biopsy, probably due to patchy myocardial involvement. One patient was diagnosed with non-familial ATTA (transthyretin) amyloidosis, but for this condition, there is no specific treatment, and the prognosis is fair.21
Recent studies have indicated that as many as 50% of patients with ‘idiopathic’ dilated cardiomyopathy may have familiar disease.22 ,23 Mutations in many different genes have been shown to cause dilated cardiomyopathy,24 most commonly with an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance.22 Owing to incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity within families, the hereditary nature of the disease may easily escape detection.22 The mutations causing dilated cardiomyopathy that have been described so far, account for only a minority of the cases thought to be hereditary on the basis of their familiar occurrence.23 Genetic screening provided a moderate diagnostic return in our patient population, uncovering 10 cases with possibly pathogenic mutations. These findings allowed for familial cascade screening,25 potentially allowing for early treatment of subclinical phenotype expression. However, the clinical effect of early treatment in these cases remains unknown. The trend towards a worse prognosis in patients with a monogenic aetiology suggests that these patients should be followed closely.
Some cases of dilated cardiomyopathy are thought to occur secondary to myocarditis.26 Viral RNA/DNA has been detected in the myocardium of a large proportion of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy,27 ,28 and viral persistence may be associated with a poor prognosis.29 However, the clinical significance of myocardial viral RNA/DNA presence is under debate, and studies have demonstrated a high prevalence of viral presence in the myocardium of persons with no evidence of heart disease.30 We did not find that patients with viral RNA/DNA detectable on endomyocardial biopsy differed significantly from patients without evidence of viral presence in the myocardium.
In everyday practice, we combine results from many diagnostic modalities to tailor treatment in patients with heart failure. Above, we have summarised the direct yield of specific diagnostic test. In addition, we use haemodynamic parameters from cardiac catheterisation to optimise diuretic treatment, we use results obtained by 24 h ECG to tailor antiarrhythmic treatment, and we use peak oxygen consumption to stratify patients for heart transplantation. The combined therapeutic yield of this information is, however, difficult to quantify.
Limitations
We present a carefully examined, but small-to-medium-sized material from a tertiary high-volume university hospital. Our patient population may differ from the population of patients with ‘idiopathic’ dilated cardiomyopathy encountered at local hospitals or in general practice. Contraindications, technical difficulties and a very few complications precluded some diagnostic test from being performed or analysed. This probably represents a ‘real-life situation’, but we cannot exclude the possibility that a few more aetiological diagnoses could have been made had every diagnostic test been performed in every patient.