Key result
Cardiac hypertrophy in infancy has a varied etiology, though a small number of cases still present as a definite clinical and pathologic entity termed congenital idiopathic hypertrophy.
Cardiac hypertrophy in infants has varied etiologies, but a small subset remains 'congenital idiopathic hypertrophy'.
Congenital idiopathic hypertrophy warrants inclusion in infant cardiac hypertrophy differentials; leaves open updated etiologic classification.
The literature dealing with cardiac hypertrophy in infancy has increased year by year since the early papers of Simmonds1and Oberndorfer,2which appeared in 1899 and 1906, respectively. No longer may the term "congenital idiopathic hypertrophy" be applied to every enlarged heart in infancy—excluding, of course, those showing gross morphologic anomalies in development. A careful study of individual cases has shown a varied etiology, including coarctation of the aorta, renal insufficiency, primary or essential hypertension, disturbed carbohydrate metabolism accompanied with the storage of excess glycogen in the fibers of the muscle and diffuse myocardial fibrosis secondary to myocardial injury. In a comparatively small number of cases, however, the use of the term "congenital idiopathic hypertrophy" is still warranted, for they present a definite clinical and pathologic entity, the source of which still remains obscure. Abbott3described this entity as being "characterized by great cardiac enlargement in the
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heber MacMahon (1938) conducted a review in Cardiac hypertrophy in infancy. Cardiac hypertrophy in infancy has a varied etiology, though a small number of cases still present as a definite clinical and pathologic entity termed congenital idiopathic hypertrophy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: