Is There a Unified Etiology of Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome? Evaluating Genetic, Structural, and Hemodynamic...

Background: Hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) is defined as "a spectrum of congenital cardiovascular malformations with normally aligned great arteries without a common atrioventricular junction, characterized by underdevelopment of the left heart with significant hypoplasia of the left ventricle including atresia, stenosis, or hypoplasia of the aortic or mitral valve, or both valves, and hypoplasia of the ascending aorta and aortic arch". Without treatment, HLHS is usually lethal in the neonate. Many hypotheses have been advanced to explain the etiology of HLHS; however, no single theory appears to fully explain the phenotypic variability seen in HLHS. Furthermore, many of these theories offer no explanations regarding the precipitating events which lead to the development of HLHS. Objective: This review considers and critically evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the leading theories proposed to explain the pathogenesis of HLHS-including hemodynamic disturbances, primary myocardial structural defects, valvar malformations, and genetic or epigenetic alterations that may provoke developmental and anatomic abnormalities. After presenting each model, we propose a novel, comprehensive, and data-driven framework which may assist researchers in developing models for the pathogenesis of the various subtypes of HLHS. Methods: Key findings from human fetal imaging, histopathology, genetic studies, and animal models were considered, as well as the hypothetical contribution of each in observed HLHS phenotypes. The rationales for these findings as causal factors initiating individual HLHS patterns, as well as how they might contribute to HLHS in general, were critically analyzed. Results: The flow theory is strongly supported by animal models and in utero interventions that demonstrate the impact of altered hemodynamics on cardiac morphogenesis. However, the flow theory fails to identify initial causes of disturbed flow or related histological features of HLHS like endocardial fibroelastosis. The myocardial and valve-first models suggest an important role in developmental defects, but do not necessarily have a strong experimental basis that provides explanations for how they mediate HLHS. Genetic studies in patients with HLHS have identified several candidate causal mutations. However, such genetic causes of HLHS exhibit incomplete phenotypic penetrance and clinical impact. A multifactorial framework attempts to integrate these diverse mechanisms and may provide the most coherent explanation that can accommodate the heterogeneity and variable presentation of HLHS. Such a framework may identify multiple forces that drive disease but does not provide useful pathways for future research about HLHS. Conclusions: No single hypothesis has fully explained how HLHS is initiated, progresses, and presents with the clinical conditions that are encountered by cardiac surgeons and cardiologists. The most current models suggest that the spectrum of HLHS reflects acomplex interaction between genetic susceptibility, flow-dependent cardiac remodeling, and environmental factors in utero. A multifactorial model integrates these diverse mechanisms and may provide the most coherent explanation for the various phenotypic variations in HLHS. Based on our analysis of the most current data and the strengths and weaknesses of the current theoretical frameworks, we propose a novel research strategy aimed at identifying specific cardiac progenitor cell populations whose dysregulation may represent a unifying explanation for the etiology of the various phenotypes of HLHS. Based on the arguments made throughout this manuscript that evaluate the various genetic, structural, and hemodynamic models of initiation of disease, we believe that the significant phenotypic variability across the spectrum of HLHS (i.e., the different anatomic subtypes for "classic" HLHS) most likely reflects different underlying etiologies and mechanisms. At the very least, it is very likely that the timing of the insult is critical in determining anatomic subtype. Based on the published data and the arguments within this manuscript, it seems naive to think that there is a single unifying mechanism explain all forms of HLHLS.