P1815The impact of PVB19 presence in myocardium in recent onset dilated cardiomyopathy

Introduction

The most common virus in myocardium of patients with recent onset dilated cardiomyopathy (RODCM) is PVB19. Opinions on its pathogenicity are different. According to some, viral load has to be evaluated and if it is low, the PVB19 has no potential to induce inflammation. Others recommend assessment of viral replication, while “innocent” are those cases where replication activity is low.

Purpose

To compare the development of echocardiographic parameters in patients with RODCM with isolated presence of PVB19 in low viral load (below 500 copies per μg nucleic acid) against a group in which no virus was detected in the myocardium.

Patient and methods

243 patients with RODCM, in 151 cases (62%), the virus was detected in the myocardium (PCR+ group), in 92 cases the finding was negative (PCR−; ie 38%). In the PCR+ group, PVB19 was captured in 135 cases (89% of all PCR+), in 121 cases of them was PVB19 the only one isolated virus (PCRPVB19+; 80% of all PCR+). The viral presence was assessed by real time PCR.

Results

In the PCR− group, the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 23.5±7.2%, in the PCRPVB19+ group 24.6±7.1% (p=0.26). Left ventricle end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) in PCR− was 66.4±8.9mm vs 65.5±7.9mm in PCRPVB19+ (p=0.42), right ventricle diameter (RV) 33.1±5.7mm vs. 33.4±5.2mm (p=0.69), TAPSE 19.5±4.1mm vs 18.9±4.0mm (p=0.28) and E/é 14.0±5.7 vs. 14.9±7.0 (p=0.32). In the 12-month control, LVEF in the PCR− was 35.5±12.3% (p<0.001 for comparison with baseline), in PCRPVB19+ 35.3±12.3% (p<0.001 for comparison with baseline; p=0.92 for difference between groups); LVEDD in PCR− was 62.0±9.3mm vs 62.1±9.3mm in PCRPVB19+ (both p<0.001 for comparison with baseline, p=0.91 for difference between groups), RV 31.6±5.5mm vs. 31.6±5.4mm (p=0.033, resp. p=0.003 for comparison with baseline; p=0.98 for difference between groups), TAPSE 20.7±4.3mm vs. 20.7±4.4mm (p=0.026, resp. p<0.001 for comparison with baseline; p=0.98 for difference between groups), and E/e' 10.3±4.1 vs. 10.4±4.1 (both p<0.001 for comparison with baseline; p=0.93 for difference between groups).

Conclusion

PVB19 presence in myocardium had no effect on the development of echocardiographic parameters in RODCM patients in one-year follow-up.

Acknowledgement/Funding

Supported by Ministry of Health of Czech Republic AZV Grant 16-30537A