Talk:Cardiomyopathy/Archive 1

Signs and Symptoms

I've noticed this section is wrong. It appears to actually be a description of hypertension but with the word "cardiomyopathy" substituted for the word "hypertension"! 94.194.49.4 (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classification and Types

I hope that someone can help out with the confusion of intrinsic and extrinsic cardiomyopathies. As it states under the Classification section, Intrinsic might be because of toxicity and inflammation, but as stated in the list of Types, they are put under Secondary/Extrinsic causes. This causes confusion.

According to Robbin's Basic Pathology it is dividied into Resitrictive, Hypertrophic and Dilated.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjonasse (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Treatment for non-ischemic cardiomyopathy

This new section does not belong on a general Cardiomyopathy page. Either move to the appropriate type (dilated?) or delete. Much of it looks over-specific (vanity?) anyway. I suggest severe editing! Maybe when I have a spare moment... Hugh2414 08:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the tone of that new section is inappropriate, but there does seem to be some meat there. I did some searching on PubMed and found three optimistic articles from 2005:

• PMID 16333238
  ("Cardiac stem cell therapy for myocardial re-generation. A clinical perspective.")
• PMID 15762847
  ("Myocardial regeneration with bone-marrow-derived stem cells.")
• PMID 16061805
  ("Cardiac repair with intramyocardial injection of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells after myocardial infarction.")

• PMID 14713729
  ("Stem cells for the heart, are we there yet?")

Unfortunately, I only have access to the abstracts, not the journal articles. --Arcadian 13:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• But those PubMed articles are about ischemic heart disease. No support for the contention that stem-cell therapy is useful in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. I still think, in any case, that there should be nothing on treatment on the general Cardiomyopathy page. Appropriate treatment depends on the type of cardiomyopathy and belongs on the specific pages. I'll delete it tomorrow (or soon, anyway) unless someone objects. And try to work stem cells into the treatment sections of some of the more specific pages. Hugh2414 22:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that this page refers to the old definition of cardiomypathy (Richardson, P.; et al. (1996). "Report of the 1995 World Health Organization/International Society and Federation of Cardiology Task Force on the Definition and Classification of cardiomyopathies". Circulation. 93 (5): 841–2.

I agree. I don't know how things were done in '95, but I'm a medical student and our pathology professors went through great lengths to make it extremely clear that cardiomyopathies are not caused by ischemic heart damage or congenital heart diseases. In other words, the "extrinsic" vs. "intrinisc" thing is out of date. Damage from ischemia is NOT a myopathy, because myopathies, by definition, are not caused by ischemia. Some of the "extrinsic" ones (ie- systemic diseases) listed still apply for restrictive myopathies, like hemochromatosis, for example. I will gladly edit in a week after my path exam :) Johnny^California 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs more information on drug-related overdoses, especially illegal drugs such as methamphetamine & cocaine, especially in young & healthy people. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some reports in research literature of cases of stimulant users eg (of methylphenidate) displaying cardiomyopathy:

Nymark, T. B., Hovland, A., Bjørnstad, H., & Nielsen, E. W. (2008). A young man with acute dilated cardiomyopathy associated with methylphenidate. Vascular health and risk management, 4(2), 477.

Kurt, R., Güneş, H., Yılmaz, M. B., & Karapınar, H. (2013). Methylphenidate Induced Myocarditis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 62(18_S2), C129-C129.

Dadfarmay, S., & Dixon, J. (2009). A case of acute cardiomyopathy and pericarditis associated with methylphenidate. Cardiovascular toxicology, 9(1), 49-52.

It could be coincidental, as it would show up in clinical trials. ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.183.103.124 (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find pictures like the one presented to be very interesting and sometimes useful. But in this case, would it be possible for someone who has better connections to medical images than me, to provide a picture of a healthy heart so that we can see the difference. For interests sake it would be good to be able to look and see what is meant by thickened left ventricle. I don't see anything thickened in the current image as I don't have the experience to judge. Nor do I think any (or many) laymen do. And one the main audiences of an encyclodaedia is the layman. I think it would add a lot to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshowmecanuck (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to re-write the classification section, in line with some of the previous comments. It turned out to be more difficult than I expected. Comments, corrections etc. would be very welcome.Mdscottis (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I'm leaving this reference should it be of use , thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

add - decided not to use--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source says

"It is also important to specify those disease entities that have not been included as cardiomyopathies in the present contemporary classification. These include pathological myocardial processes and dysfunction that are a direct consequence of other cardiovascular abnormalities such as that which occurs with valvular heart disease, systemic hypertension, congenital heart disease, and atherosclerotic coronary artery disease producing ischemic myocardial damage secondary to impairment in coronary flow. Therefore, the commonly used term “ischemic cardiomyopathy,” referring to myocardial ischemia and infarction, is not supported by this panel, nor is it part of the formal classification scheme."

[2]

Thus belongs in the body not the lead IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a better definition IMO "Cardiomyopathy is a group of diseases that affect the heart muscle"

A definition should not generally include part of the word one is trying to define. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what does IMO mean? Did you mean "in my opinion"?--It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 16:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native English speaker. 😅 I assume you mean "in my opinion". I adjusted the definition because I found I wasn't aware that cardiomyopathy is a combined word and the article didn't hint that nor did it introduce the myopathy of heart muscle in-depth that could trigger readers' awareness themselves but focuses on the group of diseases involving heart muscle that had got me felt it missing some points. The article is suggested not assume the readers are native English speakers. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 16:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just added myopathy in the see also section. Hopefully, other readers won't be like my past-self feeling confused. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 17:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of myocarditis slightly higher in young people after COVID vaccine, CDC finds--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]