ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Differential diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, fabry cardiomyopathy and cardiac amyloidosis: insights from right ventricular strain imaging echocardiography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of right ventricular (RV) myocardial assessment using two-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) in differentiating hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), Fabry cardiomyopathy (FC), and wild-type transthyretin amyloidotic cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), given the clinical importance of accurate diagnosis for guiding treatment and prognosis. Methods A retrospective study was performed involving ninety consecutive patients with nonobstructive sarcomeric HCM, FC or wild-type ATTR-CM, thirty from each disease, referred to a tertiary cardiomyopathy consultation. Thirty matched healthy individuals served as controls. All participants underwent echocardiographic evaluation of RV morphology and RV myocardial mechanics using 2D-STE. RV global longitudinal strain, RV free wall longitudinal strain, and the RV apical sparing ratio were derived and diagnostic performance of RV parameters for differentiating ATTR-CM, FC, and HCM was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. Results RV hypertrophy was significantly more prevalent in ATTR-CM and FC (100% and 97%, respectively) than in HCM (60%). ATTR-CM patients exhibited the most substantial RV strain impairment compared to FC and HCM. RV strain analysis led to significant reclassification of RV systolic dysfunction prevalence in all groups. RV global longitudinal strain, RV free wall longitudinal strain and RV apical sparing ratio emerged as effective parameters for distinguishing ATTR-CM from FC (AUC 0.91, AUC 0.89 and AUC 0.85; respectively). RV wall thickness (RVWT) was the best discriminative parameter for distinguishing ATTR-CM from HCM (AUC 0.98) and FC from HCM (AUC 0.91), followed by RV apical sparing ratio (AUC 0.94 and AUC 0.75, respectively). Excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement was observed. Conclusions Our study underscores the importance of RV assessment in differentiating HCM phenocopies. RV strain parameters and RVWT may play pivotal roles in distinguishing these conditions, facilitating earlier diagnostic and specific treatment initiation. Further research is required to assess their clinical implications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42268492What 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.