Novel Echocardiographic Parameters For Predicting Clinical Outcomes In Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy

Yeabsra Aleligne,Martin Cadeiras,Michael Gibson,Shirin Jimenez,David Liem,Julie Bidwell,Imo Ebong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.406
IF: 6.592
2024-01-01
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Abstract:Background Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) causes left atrial (LA) and left ventricular (LV) impairment due to intracardiac deposition of toxic amyloid fibrils. Left atrial volume index (LAVI) and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) are known predictors of heart failure and mortality. An enlarged left ventricle end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) indicates adverse LV remodeling. Echocardiographic studies that assess the ratio of LAVI to LVEF (LAVI/LVEFr) and LAVI to LVEDD (LAVI/LVEDDr) in ATTR-CM patients have yet to be studied. Hypothesis LAVI/LVEFr and LAVI/LVEDDr are predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with ATTR-CM. Methods This is a retrospective study of ATTR-CM patients. Participants were divided according to tertiles of the LAVI/LVEFr and LAVI/LVEDDr. Baseline characteristics and Kaplan Meir curves were evaluated for each tertile. The composite clinical outcome was death, heart transplantation (HTx), or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Cox proportional hazards models were used for analysis. Results Fifty-one ATTR-CM patients (age=77.65 ± 9.3 y.o., 82% male) were included. Mean values were LAVI: 22.99 ± 8.65, LVEF: 49.53 ± 13.57, LAVI/LVEFr: 1.04 ± 0.64, and LAVI/LVEDDr: 4.45 ± 0.65. Over a median follow-up period of 1.27 years, we observed 15 events (11 deaths, 2 HTx, and 2 LVAD implants). Participants in the upper tertile of LAVI/LVEFr had greater left atrial volume (P<0.001), lower LVEF (P<0.001), and greater prevalence of intracardiac defibrillator implantation (P=0.025). Greater LAVI/LVEFr was associated with worse clinical outcomes (Figure, Log-rank ratio 0.03). After adjusting for age and ICD implantation, LAVI/LVEFr was independently associated with an increased risk of mortality, heart transplantation, or LVAD implantation (HR: 2.68; 95% CI, 1.33-5.37; P=0.006), while LAVI/LVEDDr was not (HR: 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.28; p=0.386), Table. In ROC analysis, the best cutoff value for LAVI/LVEFr was 0.885 (AUC: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.599-0.901; P= 0.005) with 86.7% sensitivity and 63.9% specificity. Conclusion Greater LAVI/LVEFr may be a useful predictor of adverse clinical outcomes amongst patients with ATTR-CM.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?