Cardiomyopathy in neurological disorders

According to the American Heart Association, cardiomyopathies are classified as primary (solely or predominantly confined to heart muscle), secondary (those showing pathological myocardial involvement as part of a neuromuscular disorder) and those in which cardiomyopathy is the first/predominant manifestation of a neuromuscular disorder. Cardiomyopathies may be further classified as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy, restrictive cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, or unclassified cardiomyopathy (noncompaction, Takotsubo-cardiomyopathy). This review focuses on secondary cardiomyopathies and those in which cardiomyopathy is the predominant manifestation of a myopathy. Any of them may cause neurological disease, and any of them may be a manifestation of a neurological disorder. Neurological disease most frequently caused by cardiomyopathies is ischemic stroke, followed by transitory ischemic attack, syncope, or vertigo. Neurological disease, which most frequently manifests with cardiomyopathies are the neuromuscular disorders. Most commonly associated with cardiomyopathies are muscular dystrophies, myofibrillar myopathies, congenital myopathies and metabolic myopathies. Management of neurological disease caused by cardiomyopathies is not at variance from the same neurological disorders due to other causes. Management of secondary cardiomyopathies is not different from that of cardiomyopathies due to other causes either. Patients with neuromuscular disorders require early cardiologic investigations and close follow-ups, patients with cardiomyopathies require neurological investigation and avoidance of muscle toxic medication if a neuromuscular disorder is diagnosed. Which patients with cardiomyopathy profit most from primary stroke prevention is unsolved and requires further investigations.

An online survey of Australian physicians reported practice with the off-label use of nebulised frusemide

Background

Off-label prescribing is common in palliative care. Despite inconsistent reports of the benefit of nebulised frusemide for breathlessness, its use continues to be reported.

Methods

An online survey was emailed to 249 members of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine to estimate the use of nebulised frusemide for breathlessness by Australian physicians involved in palliative care in the previous 12 months.

Results

There were 52/249 (21%) respondents to the survey. The majority (44/52; 85%) had not prescribed nebulised frusemide in the previous 12 months. The most common (18/44; 43%) reason for not prescribing nebulised frusemide was a belief that there was not enough evidence to support its use. Whilst only a few respondents (8/52; 15%) reported having used nebulised frusemide, all that had used it thought there was at least some benefit in relieving breathlessness.

Conclusion

This report adds to the series of case studies reporting some benefit from nebulised frusemide in relieving breathlessnes.