Key result
Cross-sectional echocardiography differentiates RV cardiomyopathy from Uhl's anomaly via wall thickness and regional motion.
Why the study?
Can cross-sectional echocardiography differentiate between right ventricular dilated cardiomyopathy and Uhl's anomaly?
Case Report (n=8)
Can cross-sectional echocardiography differentiate between right ventricular dilated cardiomyopathy and Uhl's anomaly?
Cross-sectional echocardiography can differentiate between right ventricular dilated cardiomyopathy and Uhl's anomaly based on ventricular wall thickness and regional wall motion.
May aid differentiation of rare RV entities; leaves open validation in larger cohorts before practice change.
The echocardiographic features of six patients with isolated right ventricular dilated cardiomyopathy and two with Uhl's anomaly are described. The M-mode echocardiogram was similar in both groups showing increased right ventricular dimensions and normal or paradoxical septal motion. Cross-sectional echocardiography confirmed a dilated but poorly contracting right ventricle. However, patients with right ventricular cardiomyopathy had normal ventricular wall thickness, whereas those with Uhl's anomaly showed areas of thin right ventricular myocardium. These areas of the right ventricle also exhibited regional wall motion abnormalities. In conclusion, cross-sectional echocardiography can be used to differentiate between these two forms of right ventricular enlargement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
RIBEIRO et al. (1987) conducted a case report in Right ventricular dilated cardiomyopathy and Uhl's anomaly (n=8). Cross-sectional echocardiography vs. M-mode echocardiography was evaluated on Echocardiographic features including ventricular wall thickness and regional wall motion. Cross-sectional echocardiography differentiated right ventricular cardiomyopathy (normal wall thickness) from Uhl's anomaly (thin right ventricular myocardium with regional wall motion abnormalities).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: