ArticleScientific reports2022
A compartment-based myocardial density approach helps to solve the native T1 vs. ECV paradox in cardiac amyloidosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- CMR-based assessment of long-term effects of tafamidis in patients with cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Observational
- Multimodal Imaging for Monitoring of Disease Progression in Cardiac Amyloidosis: Advances and Gaps in Evidence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Light-Chain Cardiac Amyloidosis: Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Assessing Response to Chemotherapy.Korean journal of radiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) plays an important clinical role for diagnosis and therapy monitoring of cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Previous data suggested a lower native T1 value in spite of a higher LV mass and higher extracellular volume fraction (ECV) value in wild-type transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTRwt) compared to light-chain amyloidosis (AL)-resulting in the still unsolved "native T1 vs. ECV paradox" in CA. The purpose of this study was to address this paradox. The present study comprised N = 90 patients with ATTRwt and N = 30 patients with AL who underwent multi-parametric CMR studies prior to any specific treatment. The CMR protocol comprised cine- and late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE)-imaging as well as T2-mapping and pre-/post-contrast T1-mapping allowing to measure myocardial ECV. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF), left ventricular mass index (LVMi) and left ventricular wall thickness (LVWT) were significantly higher in ATTRwt in comparison to AL. Indexed ECV (ECVi) was also higher in ATTRwt (p = 0.041 for global and p = 0.001 for basal septal). In contrast, native T1- [1094 ms (1069-1127 ms) in ATTRwt vs. 1,122 ms (1076-1160 ms) in AL group, p = 0.040] and T2-values [57 ms (55-60 ms) vs. 60 ms (57-64 ms); p = 0.001] were higher in AL. Considering particularities in myocardial density, "total extracellular mass" (TECM) was substantially higher in ATTRwt whereas "total intracellular mass" (TICM) was rather similar between ATTRwt and AL. Consequently, the "ratio TICM/TECM" was lower in ATTRwt compared to AL (0.58 vs. 0.83; p = 0.007). Our data confirm the presence of a "native T1 vs. ECV paradox" with lower native T1 values in spite of higher myocardial mass and ECV in ATTRwt compared to AL. Importantly, this observation can be explained by particularities regarding myocardial density that result in a lower TICM/TECM "ratio" in case of ATTRwt compared to AL-since native T1 is determined by this ratio.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.