4.5 Review

Cardiac magnetic resonance evaluation of left ventricular remodelling distribution in cardiac amyloidosis

期刊

HEART
卷 100, 期 21, 页码 1688-U58

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2014-305710

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacion Alfonso Martin Escudero

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is associated with typical morphological features on echocardiography, including concentric LV hypertrophy (LVH). Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can accurately depict anatomy in different cardiomyopathies. Our aim was to describe the morphological features and remodelling patterns of CA with CMR, and establish their diagnostic accuracy, as well as the value of traditional diagnostic criteria derived from echocardiography and electrocardiography. Methods Consecutive patients referred for CMR for possible CA were retrospectively evaluated. The diagnosis of CA was established in the presence of a positive cardiac biopsy and/or a typical pattern of myocardial late gadolinium enhancement. Morphological parameters were obtained from standard cine sequences. The presence and distribution of LVH, relative wall thickness (RWT) and LV remodelling patterns were determined. Results 130 patients (92 males (70.8%), age 64 +/- 13 years) were included. CA was diagnosed in 51 (39.2%). Patients with CA had increased LV wall thickness and LV mass index. An LV remodelling pattern different from concentric LVH was found in 42% of patients with CA, and asymmetric LVH was noted in 68.6%. A model including RWT, asymmetric LVH, and LVMI showed diagnostic accuracy of 88%, sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 86% for CA detection. Traditional diagnostic criteria for CA showed high specificity but poor sensitivity. Conclusions Asymmetric LVH and remodelling patterns different from concentric LVH are common in CA. Increased LV mass index, increased RWT, and asymmetric LVH are independently associated with the diagnosis. Traditional diagnostic criteria show poor sensitivity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据