ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2025
The Mayo ATTR-CM score versus other diagnostic scores and cardiac biomarkers in patients with suspected cardiac amyloidosis.
Article in European journal of heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Performance of the Mayo ATTR-CM Score in Diverse Populations: Comparison With the AMY Score.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Cardiac imaging in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and cardiac amyloidosis: a narrative review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Heart Failure in the Modern Era: A Narrative Overview of Recent Research from 2022-2025.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Novel three-dimensional ECG algorithm for reliable screening for cardiac amyloidosis.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Biomarkers in Subclinical Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloidosis.Current heart failure reports · 2025Review
- Cardiac amyloidosis: Innovations in diagnosis and treatment.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsSeveral scores were developed to help the diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis (CA). The most recent one, being the Mayo transthyretin amyloidosis cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) score, was not externally validated. We compared the diagnostic performance of the ATTR-CM score with previous tools (increased wall thickness [IWT] score, AMYLoidosis Index [AMYLI] score, and cardiac biomarkers) in a cohort of patients evaluated for a suspicion of CA. METHODS AND
resultsWe analysed 362 consecutive patients referred to a third-level centre for suspected CA. Overall, 132 (36%) had transthyretin CA (ATTR-CA), and 91 (25%) immunoglobulin light chain CA (AL-CA); CA was excluded in 139 (38%). ATTR-CM score had a good diagnostic performance to distinguish ATTR-CA from AL-CA or no CA, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.795 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.747-0.842, p < 0.001), and ATTR-CA from no CA (AUC 0.822, 95% CI 0.774-0.871, p < 0.001). Results were consistent in both patients with preserved (AUC 0.787, 95% CI 0.726-0.848, p < 0.001), and reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction (AUC 0.790, 95% CI 0.709-0.871, p < 0.001). The ATTR-CM score showed a better discrimination compared to IWT and AMYLI score to distinguish ATTR-CA from AL-CA or no CA (p = 0.002), but not to distinguish ATTR-CA from no CA (p = 0.270). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher for the ATTR-CM score as compared to the rule-in cut-off of high-sensitivity troponin T.
conclusionsThe Mayo ATTR-CM score has a good performance in identifying patients with ATTR-CA, with also better discrimination power when compared to other scores and biomarkers.
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.