Chrome Extension
WeChat Mini Program
Use on ChatGLM

Limitations of Apical Sparing Pattern in Cardiac Amyloidosis: a Multicentre Echocardiographic Study.

Juan Cotella, Michael Randazzo, Mathew S. Maurer, Stephen Helmke, Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie, Marwa Soltani, Akash Goyal, Karolina Zareba, Richard Cheng, James N. Kirkpatrick, Vidhushei Yogeswaran, Tetsuji Kitano, Masaaki Takeuchi, Fabio Fernandes, Viviane Tiemi Hotta, Marcelo Luiz Campos Vieira, Pablo Elissamburu, Ricardo Ronderos, Aldo Prado, Efstratios Koutroumpakis, Anita Deswal, Amit Pursnani, Nitasha Sarswat, Karima Addetia, Victor Mor-Avi, Federico M. Asch, Jeremy A. Slivnick, Roberto M. Lang

European heart journal Cardiovascular imaging(2024)

Cited 0|Views23
No score
Abstract
Aims Although impaired left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) with apical sparing is a feature of cardiac amyloidosis (CA), its diagnostic accuracy has varied across studies. We aimed to determine the ability of apical sparing ratio (ASR) and most common echocardiographic parameters to differentiate patients with confirmed CA from those with clinical and/or echocardiographic suspicion of CA but with this diagnosis ruled out. Methods and results We identified 544 patients with confirmed CA and 200 controls (CTRLs) as defined above (CTRL patients). Measurements from transthoracic echocardiograms were performed using artificial intelligence software (Us2.AI, Singapore) and audited by an experienced echocardiographer. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance and optimal cut-offs for the differentiation of CA patients from CTRL patients. Additionally, a group of 174 healthy subjects (healthy CTRL) was included to provide insight on how patients and healthy CTRLs differed echocardiographically. LV GLS was more impaired (-13.9 +/- 4.6% vs -15.9 +/- 2.7%, p < 0.0005) and ASR was higher (2.4 +/- 1.2 vs 1.7 +/- 0.9, p < 0.0005) in the CA group vs. CTRL Patients. Relative wall thickness and ASR were the most accurate parameters for differentiating CA from CTRL Patients (AUC: 0.77 and 0.74, respectively). However, even with the optimal cutoff of 1.67, ASR was only 72% sensitive and 66% specific for CA, indicating presence of apical sparing in 32% of CTRL Patients and even in 6% Healthy CTRLs. Conclusion Apical sparing did not prove to be a CA-specific biomarker for accurate identification of CA, when compared with clinically similar CTRLs with no CA. [GRAPHICS]
More
Translated text
Key words
echocardiography,ventricular function,myocardial deformation,artificial intelligence
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Example
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined