Clinical experience of a systemic algorithm for diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis
Rattachement africain : dk. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac amyloidosis is an underdiagnosed disease, and its prevalence is probably higher than previously estimated. We aimed to investigate the effect of introducing a systemic diagnostic algorithm for cardiac amyloidosis in clinical practice. METHODS: A systematic diagnostic algorithm was developed and clinically applied in two hospitals in Eastern Denmark. Elderly patients (males > 60 years, females > 70 years) with left ventricular hypertrophy (≥ 12 mm) and diastolic dysfunction leading to a suspicion of cardiac amyloidosis were referred for standardised workup, including biochemistry and bone scintigraphy. RESULTS: A total of 224 patients (median age 76 years (70-83); 65% males) were included in the analysis. In total, 43 (19%) patients (84% males) were diagnosed with cardiac amyloidosis. Among the 43 diagnosed patients, 38 had transthyretin wild-type amyloidosis, one had the hereditary form and four had monoclonal-immunoglobulin-light-chain amyloidosis. Patients with cardiac amyloidosis were significantly older (81 versus 75 years old, p less-than 0.001) and more often male (84% versus 61%, p = 0.004) than the overall screened population. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic screening for cardiac amyloidosis in older patients with cardiac hypertrophy and echocardiographic signs of diastolic dysfunction is feasible and shows a diagnostic yield of 19% in the assessed population. FUNDING: None. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not relevant.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Clinical experience of a systemic algorithm for diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis
- Date Crossref
- 01/08/2025
- Éditeur
- Danish Medical Association
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.