Use of Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Cardiac AL Amyloidosis - An Analysis of "Presumed" and "Endomyocardial Biopsy-Proven" Disease.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The gold standard for diagnosis of cardiac involvement in systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis is the identification of Congo red amyloid infiltrates on endomyocardial biopsy. As this procedure is invasive, inconvenient, and expensive, the combination of clinical cardiac findings and standard 2D echocardiography (echo) is typically used as a surrogate approach. We sought to evaluate this approach by reviewing clinical and echo parameters in systemic AL amyloid pts with endomyocardial biopsy-proven involvement in comparison to pts with presumed cardiac involvement (echo abnormalities) and those with no clinical or echo findings of cardiac involvement. Methods: A retrospective chart review of AL amyloid pts referred to either the cardiology or myeloma services at our institution between 1996 and 2005 was performed. Ninety-six pts with available clinical and echo data were identified: 13 with endomyocardial biopsy-proven AL amyloid (group 1); 55 with systemic AL amyloid (histologically-proven on non-cardiac biopsy) and “presumed” cardiac disease with echo abnormalities (group 2); 28 with systemic AL amyloid without cardiac disease (no clinical cardiac findings or echo abnormalities)(group 3). Results: There were no differences between the 3 groups in the following demographic and laboratory parameters: age, gender, lab (Hb, platelets, PT/PTT, albumin, ALP, total bilirubin, creatinine, LDH), and light chain subtype. Clinically, groups 1 and 2 (both confirmed and presumed cardiac amyloid) were similar with more frequent multiorgan involvement (>2 organs: 69% group 1;71% group 2;14% group 3; p=0.0009) and presence of liver disease (31% group 1, 51% group 2; 3.5% group 3; p=0.038) than group 3. This may reflect multiorgan impairment resulting from nonspecific cardiac dysfunction. Although frequency of GI and neurologic involvement were similar in all groups, group 1 had less renal involvement (38%) vs group 2 (69%) and group 3 (60%); p=0.059. In particular, nephrotic range proteinuria was significantly less frequent in group 1 (7.6%) vs group 2 (49%) and group 3 (53%); p=0.0035. Echocardiograms performed in both confirmed (group 1) and presumed cardiac amyloid patients (group 2) showed classic findings of infiltrative cardiomyopathy: increased posterior wall thickness, IVS, LV mass, LV mass index, LV end diastolic dimension, E/A ratio (results not present in group 3). When group 1 was compared to group 2, significant differences in ejection fraction (mean 48% vs 58%; p=0.0087) remained. Contrary to the literature, OS from diagnosis did not differ between cardiac or non-cardiac groups. Conclusions: Differences in clinical and echocardiographic parameters exist between patients with histologically confirmed cardiac amyloid and those presumed to have cardiac involvement by echo. This suggests that the reliance upon echo in the diagnosis of cardiac involvement is faulty and despite the risks and inconvenience, endomyocardial biopsy for diagnosis remains the gold standard. At our centre, we routinely perform endomyocardial biopsies (with electron microscopy) and right heart catheterization on all referred systemic AL amyloid patients with a set panel of investigations including 2D echo, cardiac MRI, serum BNP and troponins. This approach will enable us to better evaluate these surrogate diagnostic tools against the gold standard.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».