Background Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is an infiltrative disease characterised by accumulation of amyloid deposits in the extracellular space of the myocardium—comprising transthyretin (ATTR) and light chain (AL) amyloidosis as the most frequent subtypes. Histopathological proof of amyloid deposits by endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is the gold standard for diagnosis of CA. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) allows non-invasive workup of suspected CA. We conducted a multi-centre study to assess the diagnostic value of CMR in comparison to EMB for the diagnosis of CA. Methods We studied N = 160 patients characterised by symptoms of heart failure and presence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy of unknown origin who presented to specialised cardiomyopathy centres in Germany and underwent further diagnostic workup by both CMR and EMB. If CA was diagnosed, additional subtyping based on EMB specimens and monoclonal protein studies in serum was performed. The CMR protocol comprised cine- and late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE)-imaging as well as native and post-contrast T1-mapping (in a subgroup)—allowing to measure extracellular volume fraction (ECV) of the myocardium. Results An EMB-based diagnosis of CA was made in N = 120 patients (CA group) whereas N = 40 patients demonstrated other diagnoses (CONTROL group). In the CA group, N = 114 (95%) patients showed a characteristic pattern of LGE indicative of CA. In the CONTROL group, only 1/40 (2%) patient showed a “false-positive” LGE pattern suggestive of CA. In the CA group, there was no patient with elevated T1-/ECV-values without a characteristic pattern of LGE indicative of CA. LGE-CMR showed a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 98% for the diagnosis of CA. The combination of a characteristic LGE pattern indicating CA with unremarkable monoclonal protein studies resulted in the diagnosis of ATTR-CA (confirmed by EMB) with a specificity of 98% [95%-confidence interval (CI) 92–100%] and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 99% (95%-CI 92–100%), respectively. The EMB-associated risk of complications was 3.13% in this study—without any detrimental or persistent complications. Conclusion Non-invasive CMR shows an excellent diagnostic accuracy and yield regarding CA. When combined with monoclonal protein studies, CMR can differentiate ATTR from AL with high accuracy and predictive value. However, invasive EMB remains a safe invasive gold-standard and allows to differentiate CA from other cardiomyopathies that can also cause LV hypertrophy.
Background: Previous publications about the association between fatty-acid binding protein 4 (FABP4) and cardiac remodeling have reported different, both beneficial and harmful, associations. Aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the association of FABP4 with parameters of myocardial remodeling defined by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). Methods: We investigated plasma FABP4 levels in 331 patients (71% men, mean age 63±13 years) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 55%) who underwent a CMR examination. We used linear cox regression to investigate associations between FABP4 and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), right ventricular enddiastolic diameter (RVEDD), relative wall thickness (RWT), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and LVEF (unadjusted and adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, cardiac biomarkers, and comorbidities). Results: FABP4 levels were associated with lower LVMI and higher NT-proBNP levels in an adjusted model. The inverse association between FABP4 and LVMI was more pronounced in lower FABP4 levels, whereas the positive association between FABP4 and NT-proBNP was more pronounced in relatively high NT-proBNP levels. Conclusions: Possible beneficial and harmful associations between FABP4 and left ventricular size have been reported. Our results suggest a beneficial association with LVMI (more pronounced in lower FABP4 levels) but a harmful association with NT-proBNP (more pronounced in higher FABP4 levels). Therefore, our results might indicate a potential dose-dependent association of FABP4, but this observation needs further investigation in larger study samples.
Background: An exaggerated blood pressure response (EBPR) during exercise testing is not well defined, and several blood pressure thresholds are used in different studies and recommended in different guidelines. Methods: Competitive athletes of any age without known arterial hypertension who presented for preparticipation screening were included in the present study and categorized for EBPR according to American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines as well as the systolic blood pressure/MET slope method. Results: Overall, 1137 athletes (mean age 21 years; 34.7% females) without known arterial hypertension were included April 2020–October 2021. Among them, 19.6%, 15.0%, and 6.8% were diagnosed EBPR according to ESC, AHA, and ACSM guidelines, respectively. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was detected in 20.5% of the athletes and was approximately two-fold more frequent in athletes with EBPR than in those without. While EBPR according to AHA (OR 2.35 [95%CI 1.66–3.33], p < 0.001) and ACSM guidelines (OR 1.81 [95%CI 1.05–3.09], p = 0.031) was independently (of age and sex) associated with LVH, EBPR defined according to ESC guidelines (OR 1.49 [95%CI 1.00–2.23], p = 0.051) was not. In adult athletes, only AHA guidelines (OR 1.96 [95%CI 1.32–2.90], p = 0.001) and systolic blood pressure/MET slope method (OR 1.73 [95%CI 1.08–2.78], p = 0.023) were independently predictive for LVH. Conclusions: Diverging guidelines exist for the screening regarding EBPR. In competitive athletes, the prevalence of EBPR was highest when applying the ESC (19.6%) and lowest using the ACSM guidelines (6.8%). An association of EBPR with LVH in adult athletes, independently of age and sex, was only found when the AHA guideline or the systolic blood pressure/MET slope method was applied.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.