Cardiomyopathy: History and Discovery

Cardiomyopathy means, literally, disease of the heart muscle — from the Greek kardia (heart), mys (muscle), and pathos (suffering). For most of medical history a failing, enlarged heart with no obvious cause was simply called “myocarditis” or “myocardial degeneration,” lumped together with valve disease, hypertension, and the effects of blocked coronary arteries. The modern idea — that the muscle itself can be primarily and intrinsically diseased — was crystallized by the London cardiologist Wallace Brigden, who in a 1957 Lancet paper used the word “cardiomyopathy” to name the “non-coronary” heart-muscle diseases. This page traces that arc: from nineteenth-century autopsy curiosities, through Donald Teare’s 1958 description of hypertrophic disease in young adults and the surgical and genetic eras that followed, to today’s sarcomere-gene science and the sober association of these diseases with sudden death in young athletes.

What the Word Means and Why It Was Needed
Before the Term: Myocarditis and Myocardial Degeneration
Wallace Brigden and the 1957 Definition
Donald Teare and Hypertrophic Disease (1958)
The Surgical Era: Braunwald, Morrow, and Obstruction
Building a Classification: Goodwin to the WHO
The Genetic Revolution: Sarcomere Genes from 1990
Arrhythmogenic and Other Forms
Sudden Death, Athletes, and the Modern Era
Research Papers and References
Connections

What the Word Means and Why It Was Needed

The heart is, above all, a muscle, and like any muscle it can become diseased in its own right. The word cardiomyopathy stitches together three Greek roots — kardia (heart), mys/myo (muscle), and pathos (suffering or disease) — to name exactly this: a disorder of the heart muscle itself. What makes the term genuinely useful is not the etymology but the idea behind it. A cardiomyopathy is a problem of the myocardium, not a consequence of something happening to the heart from outside — not a blocked coronary artery starving the muscle, not a leaking or stiff valve overloading it, and not years of high blood pressure forcing it to overwork.

That distinction sounds obvious today, but it took a remarkably long time to draw cleanly. For centuries, an enlarged, weak, or oddly thickened heart found at autopsy could be ascribed to almost anything, and the same few vague labels were applied to very different diseases. Carving out a category for primary heart-muscle disease — disease arising in the muscle itself — was a conceptual achievement of the mid-twentieth century, and it reorganized how cardiologists thought about heart failure in patients whose coronary arteries and valves looked, frustratingly, normal.

It is worth being honest about the limits of any tidy origin story. Ideas in medicine rarely spring from a single mind on a single day; they crystallize out of decades of accumulating observations. What follows distinguishes carefully between the older descriptive terms, the moment the modern word was put to systematic use, and the pathological, surgical, and genetic discoveries that filled the new category with real understanding.

Back to Table of Contents

Before the Term: Myocarditis and Myocardial Degeneration

Before “cardiomyopathy” entered routine use, physicians faced with a heart that was failing for no visible reason reached for two older labels. The first was myocarditis — inflammation of the heart muscle — a term that in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was applied very loosely, often to any soft, dilated, poorly contracting heart whether or not true inflammation was present. The second was myocardial degeneration (and related phrases such as “chronic myocarditis” or “myocardosis”), used for hearts whose muscle appeared worn out, fibrosed, or fatty without an evident cause. These were descriptive catch-alls, not diagnoses in the modern sense.

The trouble with this older vocabulary was that it blurred fundamentally different conditions. A heart enlarged by untreated hypertension, a heart scarred by a silent coronary occlusion, a heart inflamed by a genuine viral infection, and a heart intrinsically abnormal from a hereditary defect could all end up filed under the same heading. Because the categories were defined by appearance rather than mechanism, they offered little guide to cause, prognosis, or treatment. A clinician could describe such a heart but could not really explain it.

Even so, the raw observations were piling up, and some were remarkably precise. As early as 1868, at the Salpêtrière in Paris, the physician Alfred Vulpian and his students described hearts with thickened muscle obstructing the outflow below the aortic valve — what they called a subaortic cardiac stenosis — and similar accounts followed from Liouville and Hallopeau in 1869. These nineteenth-century reports, recognizable in hindsight as hypertrophic heart-muscle disease, then largely faded from view for the better part of a century. The descriptions existed; the unifying concept that would make sense of them did not yet.

Back to Table of Contents

Wallace Brigden and the 1957 Definition

The decisive step came from London. In 1957, the cardiologist Wallace Brigden published a two-part paper in The Lancet under the title “Uncommon myocardial diseases; the non-coronary cardiomyopathies.” In it he used the word cardiomyopathy to designate isolated, non-coronary disease of the heart muscle — that is, serious myocardial disease occurring in the absence of coronary artery disease, valve disease, or hypertension to explain it. Brigden gathered scattered cases that did not fit the established diagnoses and argued that they belonged together as a class of their own.

Brigden’s contribution was conceptual rather than the coining of a brand-new word: forms of the term had appeared earlier in the literature, but it was his 1957 paper that defined the category clinically and put the term into systematic, influential use. He described the range of presentations — some patients with familial disease, some with hearts showing inflammation, scarring, or thickening — and crucially framed them as primary diseases of the myocardium. The label “non-coronary” did the essential work: it told physicians what these diseases were not, and so cleared space to ask what they actually were.

The idea caught on quickly. Brigden had supposed these conditions were uncommon, but as cardiologists began looking for primary heart-muscle disease as a distinct entity, they found it was far from rare. Within a few years “cardiomyopathy” had become a standard part of the cardiological vocabulary, and the search was on for a way to sort the many forms it encompassed. That sorting — and the discoveries that drove it — is the rest of the story.

Back to Table of Contents

Donald Teare and Hypertrophic Disease (1958)

If Brigden named the territory, the pathologist Robert Donald Teare of St George’s Hospital in London mapped its most striking landmark. In 1958, in the British Heart Journal, Teare published “Asymmetrical hypertrophy of the heart in young adults,” reporting the autopsy findings of eight people — mostly young, mostly previously healthy — who had died suddenly. Seven of the eight had died abruptly and without warning. When Teare examined their hearts, he found a consistent and peculiar abnormality: the muscle of the interventricular septum was massively and asymmetrically thickened, far out of proportion to the rest of the heart.

Under the microscope the muscle looked just as strange. Instead of the orderly parallel arrangement of normal cardiac fibres, Teare saw a “bizarre” disarray — bundles of muscle running in many directions, separated by connective tissue and clefts. He interpreted this as a kind of benign muscular tumour, a hamartoma. That mechanistic interpretation turned out to be wrong: the disorder is now understood not as a tumour but as a genetically determined primary disease of the heart muscle — the condition we call hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). But Teare’s description was exact and enduring. Asymmetrical septal hypertrophy with myofibre disarray remains the morphological signature of the disease, and his linking of it to sudden death in the young was prophetic.

Teare’s eight cases gave the new category its first vivid, well-documented member and connected primary heart-muscle disease to a tragedy that still drives much of the field: the unexpected collapse of an apparently fit young person. His paper is routinely cited as the foundation of the modern study of HCM, and the half-century of work that followed is often dated from it.

Back to Table of Contents

The Surgical Era: Braunwald, Morrow, and Obstruction

While the pathologists described the diseased muscle, clinicians and surgeons in the United States were learning what it did to the circulation. At the National Institutes of Health, the cardiologist Eugene Braunwald and the cardiac surgeon Andrew Glenn Morrow led a sustained investigation of patients whose thickened septum narrowed the outflow tract of the left ventricle during each heartbeat, obstructing the ejection of blood. In a landmark 1964 report in Circulation — “Idiopathic Hypertrophic Subaortic Stenosis,” based on an analysis of 64 patients — Braunwald, Morrow, and colleagues detailed the clinical, hemodynamic, and angiographic features of this obstructive form.

The condition acquired several overlapping names in this period, including idiopathic hypertrophic subaortic stenosis (IHSS) and muscular subaortic stenosis; later usage settled on hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) as a subset of HCM. The proliferation of names reflected genuine uncertainty about whether the obstruction or the muscle disease was the essence of the problem — a debate that ran for decades. Importantly, it became clear that many patients with hypertrophic disease have no resting obstruction at all, so obstruction is one feature of the disease rather than its defining core.

The surgical contribution was concrete and lasting. Morrow devised an operation — the septal myectomy, often called the Morrow procedure — in which a portion of the overgrown septal muscle is resected through the aortic valve to relieve the obstruction. With refinements, septal myectomy has remained a standard treatment for severely symptomatic obstructive HCM to the present day, one of the earliest examples of surgery directed at a primary disease of the heart muscle itself.

Back to Table of Contents

Building a Classification: Goodwin to the WHO

A category is only as useful as the way it is divided, and through the 1960s and 1970s the London cardiologist John Goodwin did much of the dividing. Goodwin proposed grouping the cardiomyopathies by their dominant structural and functional behaviour rather than by presumed cause. His scheme distinguished a congestive (dilated) type, in which the heart enlarges and pumps weakly; a hypertrophic type, in which the muscle thickens abnormally (with or without obstruction); and an obliterative or constrictive type, in which the chambers become stiff and restricted. This functional triad — what the heart does wrong — proved far more practical at the bedside than the older appearance-based labels.

Goodwin’s framework matured into formal international consensus. A World Health Organization / International Society and Federation of Cardiology task force, which Goodwin chaired, issued an influential classification in 1980 that restricted “cardiomyopathy” to heart-muscle disease of unknown cause and recognized three principal forms: dilated, hypertrophic, and restrictive cardiomyopathy. (The 1980 attempt to confine the word to idiopathic disease was never fully accepted in practice, and phrases such as “ischemic” and “hypertensive cardiomyopathy” entered everyday speech regardless.)

The classification was revised in 1996 as understanding deepened. The updated WHO/ISFC definition framed the cardiomyopathies as myocardial diseases associated with cardiac dysfunction, organized by the dominant pathophysiology, and — for the first time in an official scheme — added a fourth main category, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. As genetics advanced, still later classifications would reorganize the field around cause rather than appearance, but the dilated–hypertrophic–restrictive backbone laid down in this era remains the framework most clinicians and patients still use.

Back to Table of Contents

The Genetic Revolution: Sarcomere Genes from 1990

For thirty years after Teare, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was clearly familial in many patients — it ran in families in a pattern suggesting a single dominant gene — but the gene itself was unknown. The breakthrough came in 1990. In a now-classic paper in the journal Cell, the group led by Christine Seidman and Jonathan Seidman (with first author Anja Geisterfer-Lowrance) reported that familial HCM in a large family was caused by a single misspelling in the gene for the β-cardiac myosin heavy chain (MYH7) — a missense mutation changing one amino acid, arginine 403, to glutamine (the famous “R403Q” mutation). For the first time, a primary heart-muscle disease had been traced to a specific defect in a specific gene.

The choice of gene was deeply illuminating. β-myosin heavy chain is a core component of the sarcomere, the molecular machine that does the actual work of contraction in every muscle cell. The discovery established HCM as fundamentally a disease of the sarcomere — a defect in the contractile apparatus itself — rather than a tumour, an inflammation, or a secondary response to overload. It reframed Teare’s “bizarre” disarray as the downstream consequence of a faulty contractile protein.

What began as a single mutation became a flood. Over the following years, additional HCM-causing mutations were found in many other sarcomere genes — most prominently MYBPC3 (cardiac myosin-binding protein C), along with the troponin and tropomyosin genes — with MYH7 and MYBPC3 together accounting for a large share of inherited cases. Parallel work uncovered genetic causes for dilated and arrhythmogenic forms as well. This genetic understanding transformed care: it made possible cascade screening of relatives, predictive testing, genetic counselling for families, and, more recently, therapies aimed directly at the overactive sarcomere — a direct line from a 1990 laboratory result to drugs and decisions in the clinic today.

Back to Table of Contents

Arrhythmogenic and Other Forms

The dilated, hypertrophic, and restrictive types did not exhaust the territory. A distinct disorder of the right ventricle — in which heart muscle is progressively replaced by fat and fibrous tissue, predisposing to dangerous arrhythmias and sudden death — came into focus in the late twentieth century. A French group led by Guy Fontaine drew attention to it in the 1970s, and in 1982 Frank Marcus, Fontaine, and colleagues published in Circulation the first comprehensive clinical series, describing 24 adult patients and establishing the entity then called arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia. It is now known as arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), and it was formally added to the WHO/ISFC classification in 1996. Recognizably similar cases had in fact been recorded centuries earlier — Giovanni Maria Lancisi described a strikingly suggestive family across four generations in his 1736 treatise De Motu Cordis — another instance of an old observation awaiting a modern framework.

Around the same backbone, cardiologists also delineated restrictive cardiomyopathy, in which the ventricles become abnormally stiff and cannot fill properly even though the muscle may not be greatly thickened or dilated. Restrictive disease has many causes, including infiltration of the muscle by abnormal substances — amyloid protein in cardiac amyloidosis, iron in haemochromatosis, or granulomas in sarcoidosis — and distinguishing it from constrictive pericarditis, a treatable disease of the heart’s outer sac, became an important diagnostic challenge in its own right.

Later decades added still more named forms — peripartum cardiomyopathy arising late in pregnancy or after delivery, the stress-induced “takotsubo” or broken-heart syndrome described in Japan in the 1990s, left ventricular non-compaction, and the toxic and metabolic cardiomyopathies (from alcohol, certain chemotherapy drugs, and other exposures). Each reflects the same trajectory that runs through this whole history: careful clinical and pathological observation first, mechanistic and genetic explanation afterward.

Back to Table of Contents

Sudden Death, Athletes, and the Modern Era

One thread has run through the story of cardiomyopathy from Teare’s very first cases: its capacity to kill suddenly, often in the young and apparently healthy. The most public face of this is the death of a young athlete who collapses during sport. Decades of registry work, much of it led by Barry Maron in the United States, identified hypertrophic cardiomyopathy as one of the most common causes — in many series the single most common cause — of sudden cardiac death in young competitive athletes. The cruel logic is that the very fitness that lets a young person train hard can mask a dangerous heart, and intense exertion can trigger a fatal arrhythmia in a structurally abnormal myocardium.

This recognition reshaped both medicine and public policy. It motivated pre-participation screening programmes for athletes (with ongoing debate about whether to add the electrocardiogram or echocardiogram to the physical examination), guidance on activity restriction, and the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in those at high risk — devices that detect a lethal rhythm and shock the heart back to normal. It also helped spread automated external defibrillators through stadiums, schools, and gyms, so a collapse on the field has a far better chance of a survivable outcome than it once did.

The modern era ties the whole history together. Imaging — especially echocardiography and cardiac MRI — now reveals the thickened, dilated, infiltrated, or fat-replaced muscle that earlier physicians could see only at autopsy. Genetic testing can identify a sarcomere mutation in a living, symptom-free person and prompt the screening of an entire family. And targeted drugs, including agents that directly dampen the overactive sarcomere in HCM, treat the disease closer to its molecular root than ever before. From a vague nineteenth-century “myocardial degeneration,” through Brigden’s naming and Teare’s eight tragic cases, to a gene on a chromosome and a tablet aimed at a contractile protein, the history of cardiomyopathy shows how patient, accurate observation slowly becomes mechanism, and mechanism becomes care. The detailed clinical picture, diagnosis, and treatment are covered on the companion Cardiomyopathy page.

Back to Table of Contents

Research Papers and References

The references below combine the foundational primary papers in the history of cardiomyopathy — Brigden’s 1957 definition, Teare’s 1958 description, the 1964 Braunwald–Morrow obstruction study, the 1990 Seidman sarcomere-gene discovery, and the Marcus ARVC series — with peer-reviewed historical reviews and curated PubMed topic searches. Direct article links open at PubMed or the publisher in a new tab; where a single confident permanent identifier was not available, a PubMed topic search is provided instead.

Brigden W. Uncommon myocardial diseases; the non-coronary cardiomyopathies. Lancet. 1957;273(7007):1179-1184. — PubMed: PMID 13492602
Teare D. Asymmetrical hypertrophy of the heart in young adults. British Heart Journal. 1958;20(1):1-8. — PubMed: PMID 13499764
Braunwald E, Lambrew CT, Rockoff SD, Ross J Jr, Morrow AG. Idiopathic Hypertrophic Subaortic Stenosis. I. A Description of the Disease Based Upon an Analysis of 64 Patients. Circulation. 1964;30(Suppl 4):IV-3–IV-119. — doi:10.1161/01.CIR.29.5S4.IV-3
Geisterfer-Lowrance AAT, Kass S, Tanigawa G, Vosberg HP, McKenna W, Seidman CE, Seidman JG. A molecular basis for familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a beta cardiac myosin heavy chain gene missense mutation. Cell. 1990;62(5):999-1006. — doi:10.1016/0092-8674(90)90274-I
Marcus FI, Fontaine GH, Guiraudon G, et al. Right ventricular dysplasia: a report of 24 adult cases. Circulation. 1982;65(2):384-398. — doi:10.1161/01.CIR.65.2.384
Maron BJ, Roberts WC, McAllister HA, Rosing DR, Epstein SE. Sudden death in young athletes (and the role of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). Circulation. 1980;62(2):218-229. — doi:10.1161/01.CIR.62.2.218
Coppini R, Ho CY, Olivotto I, et al. Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy—Past, Present and Future. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2017;6(12):118. — doi:10.3390/jcm6120118
History and evolution of the cardiomyopathy classification (WHO/ISFC 1980 and 1996; functional schema) — PubMed: cardiomyopathy classification history
John Goodwin and the functional classification of cardiomyopathies (congestive, hypertrophic, obliterative) — PubMed: Goodwin cardiomyopathy classification
Early (19th-century) descriptions of hypertrophic heart-muscle disease (Vulpian; Liouville and Hallopeau) and the first century of HCM — PubMed: hypertrophic cardiomyopathy history
The sarcomere-gene basis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: MYH7, MYBPC3, and beyond — PubMed: HCM sarcomere genes
Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy / dysplasia — history, Fontaine and Marcus, diagnostic criteria — PubMed: ARVC history
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy as a cause of sudden cardiac death in young athletes; pre-participation screening — PubMed: HCM sudden death in athletes
Dilated cardiomyopathy — etiology, genetics, and historical concepts of “myocardial degeneration” — PubMed: dilated cardiomyopathy etiology and history

External Authoritative Resources

Back to Table of Contents

Connections

Back to Table of Contents