Mini Review Volume 11 Issue 6
Faculty, Department of Medicine, Spain
Correspondence: Gimenez L, Faculty, Department of Medicine, Spain, Tel man@yahoo.com.ar
Received: July 31, 2018 | Published: November 21, 2018
Citation: Gimenez L, Mitelman J. New proposals for diagnosis and treatment of the chronic period without demonstrable pathology of Chagas disease. J Cardiol Curr Res. 2018;11(6):243-244. DOI: 10.15406/jccr.2018.11.00409
Chagas disease goes through two stages, one is acute and the other chronic. Both the acute and chronic periods with pathology have treatment the chronic period without demonstrable pathology integrates the most important group, developing the disease only 25 to 30%. We consider it essential to systematically monitor these patients with diagnostic and therapeutic tools appropriate to current cardiology
Pathophysiology Intervening factors in the development of cardiomyopathy
Our research group proposes a score of clinical outcomes, with validated studies and proposed treatment for subclinical lesions (autonomic, endothelial anatomical) early to prevent the development of Chagas cardiomyopathy. Integrated Score is to detect early alterations that would lead to the development of cardiac complications in chronic patients without proven pathology.
With the approach of the disease using tools and diagnostic tests sufficiently validated and according to the association between them, it is determined to follow up the most committed patients and use different therapies according to the damage found. It is important to note that other studies may be used to detect subclinical lesions that have the same kind of recommendation and the same level of evidence used in this score. We believe that the persistence of the parasite in the infected organism would not be the only mechanism that would have a determinate role in the development of the pathogenesis of the illness and consequently even a successful etiological treatment would not be able to avoid the development of the terminal lesions characterized by the disease (Table 1).2,3
Risk score (Mitelman-Gimenez) |
||||
|
Points |
Recommendations and level of opinion |
Treatment |
|
Exploration of the autonomic nervous system |
||||
Antimuscarinic receptor antibodies |
3 |
IC |
Beta blockers and Sympathomimetics |
|
Ergometry |
3 |
IC |
||
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Non Dipper |
3 |
IIa-B |
||
Variability of cardiac frequency |
2 |
IC |
||
QT dispersion analysis |
2 |
IIb-C |
||
Exploration of the endothelium |
||||
Soluble thrombomodulin or the von Willebrand factor |
3 |
IC |
Quinapril,Simvastatina |
|
Brachial echo Doppler |
3 |
IC |
||
Evaluation of the autonomic myocardial substrate |
||||
Two-dimensional echocardiogram-tissue Doppler Imaging |
4 |
IC |
Lisinopril-Losartan |
|
Signal averaged electrocardiogram |
2 |
III-B |
||
Fibrosis markers |
3 |
IIb-C |
Table 1 Risk score (Mitelman-Gimenez)
Risk Score: Mild, 1-9; Moderate, 10-18; Risk score Severe, 19–23
This risk analysis allows
It is known that the parasite plays a causal role in the development of heart disease but the evidence that parasiticide medication prevents progression continues to be a fragile criterion and that the treatment of subclinical endothelial, microvascular and dysautonomic lesions with other measures must be addressed. Therapeutic Serological cure does not indicate clinical cure.4
None.
Author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
©2018 Gimenez, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.