Key result
Cardiac amyloidosis linked to ~13-fold higher rate of severely impaired LVGLS vs. constrictive pericarditis.
Why the study?
Cardiac amyloidosis and constrictive pericarditis present differential diagnoses of restrictive hemodynamic alterations, prompting evaluation of the role of CMR feature-tracking parameters in differentiating between them.
Does cardiac magnetic resonance feature-tracking differentiate cardiac amyloidosis from constrictive pericarditis?
Cohort (n=66)
No
Does cardiac magnetic resonance feature-tracking differentiate cardiac amyloidosis from constrictive pericarditis?
CMR feature-tracking, specifically biventricular global longitudinal strain, serves as a non-invasive tool to effectively differentiate cardiac amyloidosis from constrictive pericarditis.
LVGLS ≤10% may aid differentiation of cardiac amyloidosis from constrictive pericarditis; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
Objectives. Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) and constrictive pericarditis (CP) are described as the differential diagnoses of restrictive hemodynamic alterations of the heart. We aimed to explain cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging findings (especially feature tracking (FT)) of CA and CP cases and compare them with healthy controls. Moreover, we evaluated the role of biventricular FT parameters in differentiating CA from CP. Methods. Thirty-eight patients who underwent CMR between February 2016 and January 2018 with the ultimate diagnosis of CA (19 patients) or CP (19 patients) were enrolled. We included biopsy-proven light-chain amyloidosis patients. The data of 28 healthy controls were utilized for comparison. The patients were followed up for 8–23 months to register mortality and their surveillance. All CMR morphological and functional data, including FT parameters, were recorded and analyzed. Results. Of only 13/19 (68.4%) CA patients who had the follow-up data, 11/13 (84.6%) died. One of The CP patients (5.3%) expired during the follow-up. Significant between-group differences were noted concerning the biventricular ejection fraction as well as global longitudinal, circumferential, and radial strain values ( <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>P</a:mi> <a:mi>s</a:mi> <a:mo><</a:mo> <a:mn>0.001</a:mn> </a:math> ). The left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain (GLS) ≤10% was detected in 13/19 (68.4%) of the CA and 1/19 (5.3%) of CP cases ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>P</c:mi> <c:mo><</c:mo> <c:mn>0.001</c:mn> </c:math> ). A significant difference between the mean value of the LVGLS and LV global circumferential strain (GCS) of the basal LV level compared to the mid and apical levels was observed ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>P</e:mi> <e:mi>s</e:mi> <e:mo><</e:mo> <e:mn>0.001</e:mn> </e:math> ) in the CA patients. The differences between the mean LVGLS and the GCS measures of the mid and apical LV levels were not significant ( <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>P</g:mi> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mn>1</g:mn> </g:math> and <i:math xmlns:i="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"> <i:mi>P</i:mi> <i:mo>=</i:mo> <i:mn>0.06</i:mn> </i:math> , respectively). Conclusions. In our study, CA and CP severely disrupted ventricular strains. Biventricular GLS was meaningfully lower in the CA subjects. Therefore, strain analysis, especially in the longitudinal direction, could be helpful to differentiate CA from CP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asadian et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cardiac Amyloidosis and Constrictive Pericarditis (n=66). Cardiac amyloidosis vs. Constrictive pericarditis was evaluated on Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LVGLS) ≤10% (p=<0.001). Cardiac amyloidosis was associated with severely impaired ventricular strain, with LVGLS ≤10% detected in 68.4% of patients compared to only 5.3% of those with constrictive pericarditis (p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: