2022
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.817456
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Risk Score to Diagnose Cardiac Involvement and Provide Prognosis Information in Patients at Risk of Cardiac Light-Chain Amyloidosis

Abstract: BackgroundCardiac light-chain amyloidosis (AL CA) portends poor prognosis. Contrast cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging is an important tool in recognizing AL CA. But contraindications to contrast CMR would significantly restrict its clinical application value. Our study aims to construct a convenient risk score to help identify cardiac involvement in patients at risk of AL CA. Moreover, we also investigate whether this risk score could provide prognosis information.… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 50 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The T1 mapping and ECV values of HCM and AL CA were higher than those of the normal control group (1243.5 ± 29.5 vs. 1318.2 ± 32.4 vs. 1374.6 ± 74.9 ms, both P < 0.001; 30.1 ± 2.5 vs. 31.3 ± 3.4 vs. 42.8 ± 11.5%, P < 0.001, respectively). This study had similar results, which is consistent with other studies ( 10 , 41 ). And the ECV values of Mayo stage I/II AL CA were significantly higher than those of HCM, and the difference was statistically significant (31.3 ± 3.4 vs. 37.8 ± 5.7%, P < 0.05).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%
“…The T1 mapping and ECV values of HCM and AL CA were higher than those of the normal control group (1243.5 ± 29.5 vs. 1318.2 ± 32.4 vs. 1374.6 ± 74.9 ms, both P < 0.001; 30.1 ± 2.5 vs. 31.3 ± 3.4 vs. 42.8 ± 11.5%, P < 0.001, respectively). This study had similar results, which is consistent with other studies ( 10 , 41 ). And the ECV values of Mayo stage I/II AL CA were significantly higher than those of HCM, and the difference was statistically significant (31.3 ± 3.4 vs. 37.8 ± 5.7%, P < 0.05).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 93%