4.7 Review

Critical Comparison of Documents From Scientific Societies on Cardiac Amyloidosis JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 79, Issue 13, Pages 1288-1303

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.01.036

Keywords

cardiac amyloidosis; diagnosis; guidelines; management; scientific societies

Funding

  1. Pfizer
  2. Eidos
  3. NIH [R01HL1396 71, R21AG058348, K24AG03677 8]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the past year, 5 scientific societies have issued documents on cardiac amyloidosis (CA), providing guidance for clinicians managing patients and highlighting areas for further investigation. The documents share similarities regarding diagnosis and treatment, but diverge on specific details, indicating knowledge gaps and unmet needs in CA management.
Over the last year, 5 national or international scientific societies have issued documents regarding cardiac amyloidosis (CA) to highlight the emerging clinical science, raise awareness, and facilitate diagnosis and management of CA. These documents provide useful guidance for clinicians managing patients with CA, and all include: 1) an algorithm to establish a diagnosis; 2) an emphasis on noninvasive diagnosis with the combined use of bone scintigraphy and the exclusion of a monoclonal protein; and 3) indications for novel disease-modifying therapies for symptomatic CA, either with or without peripheral neuropathy. Nonetheless, the documents diverge on specific details of diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment. Highlighting the similarities and differences of the documents by the 5 scientific societies with respect to diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment offers useful insight into the knowledge gaps and unmet needs in the management of CA. An analysis of these documents, therefore, highlights gray zones requiring further investigation. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available