Grigorios Chatzantonis1, Michael Bietenbeck1, Ahmed Elsanhoury2, Carsten Tschöpe2,3, Burkert Pieske4, Gloria Tauscher5, Julia Vietheer6,7, Zornitsa Shomanova1, Heiko Mahrholdt5, Andreas Rolf6,7, Sebastian Kelle4, Ali Yilmaz8. 1. Department of Cardiology I, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building A1, 48149, Münster, Germany. 2. Department of Cardiology, Centre for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), Campus Virchow and Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Charite, Berlin, Germany. 3. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Berlin, Charite, Berlin, Germany. 4. Department of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 5. Department of Cardiology, Robert-Bosch-Medical Centre, Stuttgart, Germany. 6. Department of Cardiology, Kerckhoff Hospital, University Giessen, Bad Nauheim, Germany. 7. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Rhine Main, Frankfurt, Germany. 8. Department of Cardiology I, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Building A1, 48149, Münster, Germany. ali.yilmaz@ukmuenster.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is an infiltrative disease characterised by accumulation of amyloid deposits in the extracellular space of the myocardium-comprising transthyretin (ATTR) and light chain (AL) amyloidosis as the most frequent subtypes. Histopathological proof of amyloid deposits by endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is the gold standard for diagnosis of CA. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) allows non-invasive workup of suspected CA. We conducted a multi-centre study to assess the diagnostic value of CMR in comparison to EMB for the diagnosis of CA. METHODS: We studied N = 160 patients characterised by symptoms of heart failure and presence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy of unknown origin who presented to specialised cardiomyopathy centres in Germany and underwent further diagnostic workup by both CMR and EMB. If CA was diagnosed, additional subtyping based on EMB specimens and monoclonal protein studies in serum was performed. The CMR protocol comprised cine- and late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE)-imaging as well as native and post-contrast T1-mapping (in a subgroup)-allowing to measure extracellular volume fraction (ECV) of the myocardium. RESULTS: An EMB-based diagnosis of CA was made in N = 120 patients (CA group) whereas N = 40 patients demonstrated other diagnoses (CONTROL group). In the CA group, N = 114 (95%) patients showed a characteristic pattern of LGE indicative of CA. In the CONTROL group, only 1/40 (2%) patient showed a "false-positive" LGE pattern suggestive of CA. In the CA group, there was no patient with elevated T1-/ECV-values without a characteristic pattern of LGE indicative of CA. LGE-CMR showed a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 98% for the diagnosis of CA. The combination of a characteristic LGE pattern indicating CA with unremarkable monoclonal protein studies resulted in the diagnosis of ATTR-CA (confirmed by EMB) with a specificity of 98% [95%-confidence interval (CI) 92-100%] and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 99% (95%-CI 92-100%), respectively. The EMB-associated risk of complications was 3.13% in this study-without any detrimental or persistent complications. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive CMR shows an excellent diagnostic accuracy and yield regarding CA. When combined with monoclonal protein studies, CMR can differentiate ATTR from AL with high accuracy and predictive value. However, invasive EMB remains a safe invasive gold-standard and allows to differentiate CA from other cardiomyopathies that can also cause LV hypertrophy.
BACKGROUND:Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is an infiltrative disease characterised by accumulation of amyloid deposits in the extracellular space of the myocardium-comprising transthyretin (ATTR) and light chain (AL) amyloidosis as the most frequent subtypes. Histopathological proof of amyloid deposits by endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is the gold standard for diagnosis of CA. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) allows non-invasive workup of suspected CA. We conducted a multi-centre study to assess the diagnostic value of CMR in comparison to EMB for the diagnosis of CA. METHODS: We studied N = 160 patients characterised by symptoms of heart failure and presence of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy of unknown origin who presented to specialised cardiomyopathy centres in Germany and underwent further diagnostic workup by both CMR and EMB. If CA was diagnosed, additional subtyping based on EMB specimens and monoclonal protein studies in serum was performed. The CMR protocol comprised cine- and late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE)-imaging as well as native and post-contrast T1-mapping (in a subgroup)-allowing to measure extracellular volume fraction (ECV) of the myocardium. RESULTS: An EMB-based diagnosis of CA was made in N = 120 patients (CA group) whereas N = 40 patients demonstrated other diagnoses (CONTROL group). In the CA group, N = 114 (95%) patients showed a characteristic pattern of LGE indicative of CA. In the CONTROL group, only 1/40 (2%) patient showed a "false-positive" LGE pattern suggestive of CA. In the CA group, there was no patient with elevated T1-/ECV-values without a characteristic pattern of LGE indicative of CA. LGE-CMR showed a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 98% for the diagnosis of CA. The combination of a characteristic LGE pattern indicating CA with unremarkable monoclonal protein studies resulted in the diagnosis of ATTR-CA (confirmed by EMB) with a specificity of 98% [95%-confidence interval (CI) 92-100%] and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 99% (95%-CI 92-100%), respectively. The EMB-associated risk of complications was 3.13% in this study-without any detrimental or persistent complications. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive CMR shows an excellent diagnostic accuracy and yield regarding CA. When combined with monoclonal protein studies, CMR can differentiate ATTR from AL with high accuracy and predictive value. However, invasive EMB remains a safe invasive gold-standard and allows to differentiate CA from other cardiomyopathies that can also cause LV hypertrophy.
Authors: Ana Martinez-Naharro; Tushar Kotecha; Karl Norrington; Michele Boldrini; Tamer Rezk; Candida Quarta; Thomas A Treibel; Carol J Whelan; Daniel S Knight; Peter Kellman; Frederick L Ruberg; Julian D Gillmore; James C Moon; Philip N Hawkins; Marianna Fontana Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-03-14
Authors: Shahryar G Saba; Michael P Gannon; David T Majure; Navid Rahmani; Amar B Shah; Christopher J Palestro; Rakesh D Shah Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Daniel Lavall; Nicola H Vosshage; Romy Geßner; Stephan Stöbe; Sebastian Ebel; Timm Denecke; Andreas Hagendorff; Ulrich Laufs Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Anca Florian; Michael Bietenbeck; Anna Hüsing-Kabar; Matthias Schilling; Hartmut H Schmidt; Ali Yilmaz Journal: Eur Heart J Case Rep Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Xi Yang Zhou; Chun Xiang Tang; Ying Kun Guo; Xin Wei Tao; Wen Cui Chen; Jin Zhou Guo; Gui Sheng Ren; Xiao Li; Song Luo; Jun Hao Li; Wei Wei Huang; Guang Ming Lu; Long Jiang Zhang; Xiang Hua Huang; Yi Ning Wang; Gui Fen Yang Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-03-30
Authors: Christina Binder; Franz Duca; Thomas Binder; René Rettl; Theresa Marie Dachs; Benjamin Seirer; Luciana Camuz Ligios; Fabian Dusik; Christophe Capelle; Hong Qin; Hermine Agis; Renate Kain; Christian Hengstenberg; Roza Badr Eslam; Diana Bonderman Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 5.460
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