Paco E Bravo1, Kana Fujikura2, Marie Foley Kijewski3, Michael Jerosch-Herold2, Sophia Jacob3, Mohamed Samir El-Sady3, William Sticka3, Shipra Dubey3, Anthony Belanger3, Mi-Ae Park3, Marcelo F Di Carli4, Raymond Y Kwong5, Rodney H Falk6, Sharmila Dorbala7. 1. Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Divisions of Nuclear Medicine and Cardiology, Departments of Radiology and Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Amyloidosis Program, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Amyloidosis Program, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: sdorbala@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to test whether relative apical sparing (RELAPS) of left ventricular (LV) longitudinal strain (LS) in cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is explained by regional differences in markers of amyloid burden (18F-florbetapir uptake by positron emission tomography [PET] and/or extracellular volume fraction [ECV] by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)]. BACKGROUND: Further knowledge of the pathophysiological basis for RELAPS can help understand the adverse outcomes associated with apical LS impairment. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 32 subjects (age 62 ± 7 years; 50% males) with light chain CA. All subjects underwent two-dimensional echocardiography for LS estimation and 18F-florbetapir PET for quantification of LV florbetapir retention index (RI). A subset also underwent CMR (n = 22) for ECV quantification. Extracellular LV mass (LV mass*ECV) and total florbetapir binding (extracellular LV mass*florbetapir RI) were also calculated. All parameters were measured globally and regionally (base, mid, and apex). RESULTS: There was a significant base-to-apex gradient in LS (-7.4 ± 3.2% vs. -8.6 ± 4.0% vs. -20.8 ± 6.6%; p < 0.0001), maximal LV wall thickness (15.7 ± 1.9 cm vs. 15.4 ± 2.9 cm vs. 10.1 ± 2.4 cm; p < 0.0001), and LV mass (74.8 ± 21.2 g vs. 60.8 ± 17.3 g vs. 23.4 ± 6.2 g; p < 0.0001). In contrast, florbetapir RI (0.089 ± 0.03 μmol/min/g vs. 0.097 ± 0.03 μmol/min/g vs. 0.085 ± 0.03 μmol/min/g; p = 0.45) and ECV (0.53 ± 0.08 vs. 0.49 ± 0.08 vs. 0.49 ± 0.07; p = 0.15) showed no significant base-to-apex gradient in the tissue concentration or proportion of amyloid infiltration, whereas markers of total amyloid load, such as total florbetapir binding (3.4 ± 1.7 μmol/min vs. 2.8 ± 1.5 μmol/min vs. 0.93 ± 0.49 μmol/min; p < 0.0001) and extracellular LV mass (40.0 ± 15.6 g vs. 30.2 ± 10.9 g vs. 11.6 ± 3.9 g; p < 0.0001), did show a marked base-to-apex gradient. CONCLUSIONS: Segmental differences in the distribution of the total amyloid mass, rather than the proportion of amyloid deposits, appear to explain the marked regional differences in LS in CA. Although these 2 matrices are clearly related concepts, they should not be used interchangeably.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to test whether relative apical sparing (RELAPS) of left ventricular (LV) longitudinal strain (LS) in cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is explained by regional differences in markers of amyloid burden (18F-florbetapir uptake by positron emission tomography [PET] and/or extracellular volume fraction [ECV] by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)]. BACKGROUND: Further knowledge of the pathophysiological basis for RELAPS can help understand the adverse outcomes associated with apical LS impairment. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 32 subjects (age 62 ± 7 years; 50% males) with light chain CA. All subjects underwent two-dimensional echocardiography for LS estimation and 18F-florbetapir PET for quantification of LV florbetapir retention index (RI). A subset also underwent CMR (n = 22) for ECV quantification. Extracellular LV mass (LV mass*ECV) and total florbetapir binding (extracellular LV mass*florbetapir RI) were also calculated. All parameters were measured globally and regionally (base, mid, and apex). RESULTS: There was a significant base-to-apex gradient in LS (-7.4 ± 3.2% vs. -8.6 ± 4.0% vs. -20.8 ± 6.6%; p < 0.0001), maximal LV wall thickness (15.7 ± 1.9 cm vs. 15.4 ± 2.9 cm vs. 10.1 ± 2.4 cm; p < 0.0001), and LV mass (74.8 ± 21.2 g vs. 60.8 ± 17.3 g vs. 23.4 ± 6.2 g; p < 0.0001). In contrast, florbetapir RI (0.089 ± 0.03 μmol/min/g vs. 0.097 ± 0.03 μmol/min/g vs. 0.085 ± 0.03 μmol/min/g; p = 0.45) and ECV (0.53 ± 0.08 vs. 0.49 ± 0.08 vs. 0.49 ± 0.07; p = 0.15) showed no significant base-to-apex gradient in the tissue concentration or proportion of amyloid infiltration, whereas markers of total amyloid load, such as total florbetapir binding (3.4 ± 1.7 μmol/min vs. 2.8 ± 1.5 μmol/min vs. 0.93 ± 0.49 μmol/min; p < 0.0001) and extracellular LV mass (40.0 ± 15.6 g vs. 30.2 ± 10.9 g vs. 11.6 ± 3.9 g; p < 0.0001), did show a marked base-to-apex gradient. CONCLUSIONS: Segmental differences in the distribution of the total amyloid mass, rather than the proportion of amyloid deposits, appear to explain the marked regional differences in LS in CA. Although these 2 matrices are clearly related concepts, they should not be used interchangeably.
Authors: Sharmila Dorbala; Divya Vangala; John Bruyere; Christina Quarta; Jenna Kruger; Robert Padera; Courtney Foster; Michael Hanley; Marcelo F Di Carli; Rodney Falk Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Brett W Sperry; Michael N Vranian; Albree Tower-Rader; Rory Hachamovitch; Mazen Hanna; Richard Brunken; Dermot Phelan; Manuel D Cerqueira; Wael A Jaber Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-10-05
Authors: Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Anthony N Price; Stephan Ellmerich; J Paul Simons; Raya Al-Shawi; Tammy L Kalber; Rupinder Ghatrora; Philip N Hawkins; James C Moon; Roger J Ordidge; Mark B Pepys; Mark F Lythgoe Journal: Amyloid Date: 2013-04-26 Impact factor: 7.141
Authors: Sanjay M Banypersad; Daniel M Sado; Andrew S Flett; Simon D J Gibbs; Jennifer H Pinney; Viviana Maestrini; Andrew T Cox; Marianna Fontana; Carol J Whelan; Ashutosh D Wechalekar; Philip N Hawkins; James C Moon Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Adam K McDiarmid; Peter P Swoboda; Bara Erhayiem; Rosalind E Lancaster; Gemma K Lyall; David A Broadbent; Laura E Dobson; Tarique A Musa; David P Ripley; Pankaj Garg; John P Greenwood; Carrie Ferguson; Sven Plein Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Marianna Fontana; Silvia Pica; Patricia Reant; Amna Abdel-Gadir; Thomas A Treibel; Sanjay M Banypersad; Viviana Maestrini; William Barcella; Stefania Rosmini; Heerajnarain Bulluck; Rabya H Sayed; Ketna Patel; Shameem Mamhood; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; Carol J Whelan; Anna S Herrey; Helen J Lachmann; Ashutosh D Wechalekar; Charlotte H Manisty; Eric B Schelbert; Peter Kellman; Julian D Gillmore; Philip N Hawkins; James C Moon Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marcus V Simões; Fabio Fernandes; Fabiana G Marcondes-Braga; Philip Scheinberg; Edileide de Barros Correia; Luis Eduardo P Rohde; Fernando Bacal; Silvia Marinho Martins Alves; Sandrigo Mangini; Andréia Biolo; Luis Beck-da-Silva; Roberta Shcolnik Szor; Wilson Marques Junior; Acary Souza Bulle Oliveira; Márcia Waddington Cruz; Bruno Vaz Kerges Bueno; Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar; Aurora Felice Castro Issa; Felix José Alvarez Ramires; Otavio Rizzi Coelho Filho; André Schmidt; Ibraim Masciarelli Francisco Pinto; Carlos Eduardo Rochitte; Marcelo Luiz Campos Vieira; Cláudio Tinoco Mesquita; Celso Dario Ramos; José Soares-Junior; Minna Moreira Dias Romano; Wilson Mathias Junior; Marcelo Iório Garcia Junior; Marcelo Westerlund Montera; Marcelo Dantas Tavares de Melo; Sandra Marques E Silva; Pedro Manoel Marques Garibaldi; Aristóteles Comte de Alencar Neto; Renato Delascio Lopes; Diane Xavier de Ávila; Denizar Viana; José Francisco Kerr Saraiva; Manoel Fernandes Canesin; Glaucia Maria Moraes de Oliveira; Evandro Tinoco Mesquita Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Grigorios Korosoglou; Sorin Giusca; Florian André; Fabian Aus dem Siepen; Peter Nunninger; Arnt V Kristen; Norbert Frey Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag Date: 2021-10-23