ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Prognostic value of echocardiography in light chain cardiac amyloidosis: after adjusting for treatment status.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prognostic performance of biomarker-based staging systems in light chain cardiac amyloidosis (AL-CA) remains limited. In addition, the role of echocardiography in risk stratification has not been fully established in the era of contemporary therapies. This study aimed to identify echocardiographic parameters that independently predict adverse outcomes after accounting for treatment status, and to assess their incremental prognostic value beyond established biomarker-based staging systems. Methods: Clinical data and two-dimensional echocardiography were collected from patients with AL-CA, who were staged according to the 2012 revised Mayo staging system. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Treatment status was defined as a time-dependent covariate and categorized as on-treatment or off-treatment. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed to determine optimal cutoffs for echocardiographic parameters. Results: Among 100 patients with AL-CA, the median follow-up was 35 [15, 46] months, during which 36 deaths occurred. Patients who experienced events showed more severe structural and functional cardiac impairment than those who remained event-free. After multivariable adjustment, only left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [hazard ratio (HR): 0.963, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.930-0.998, P=0.041], mitral s' (HR: 0.737, 95% CI: 0.596-0.911, P=0.005), and mid-cavity circumferential strain (CS) (HR: 1.125, 95% CI: 1.022-1.240, P=0.016) remained independent predictors of mortality. ROC analyses identified optimal cutoff values of 5 cm/s for mitral s' and -15.9% for mid-cavity CS in discriminating between patients with and without events. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated progressively worse survival with increasing Mayo stage (P<0.001). Likelihood ratio tests indicated that mitral s' ≤5 cm/s and mid-cavity CS >-15.9% provided significant incremental prognostic value over the revised Mayo staging system. Incorporating mitral s' ≤5 cm/s into the Mayo staging system further improved risk reclassification, with an overall net reclassification improvement (NRI) of 31.8%. Conclusions: After adjusting for treatment status, mitral s' and mid-cavity CS remained independent prognostic markers in AL-CA, underscoring their potential to enhance current biomarker-based staging systems.
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.