SynthesisESC heart failure2026
Prevalence of cardiac amyloidosis in screening studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac amyloidosis (CA) is an under-recognized cause of heart failure. Its prevalence in screening studies, and the extent to which selective confirmatory testing affects prevalence estimates, remain uncertain across clinical settings.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 10 August 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. We grouped studies by clinical setting and combined prevalence estimates using random-effects meta-analysis. For each study, we calculated CA prevalence in (1) the whole enrolled cohort and (2) the subgroup who underwent confirmatory testing.
resultsEighty-three studies were included. Pooled CA prevalence (whole cohort; tested subgroup) was highest in left ventricular hypertrophy/hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [LVH/HCM] (15.1%; 35.4%), followed by heart failure (HF)-mainly HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF/HFmrEF)-(12.6%; 13.6%) and aortic stenosis (AS) (9.6%; 11.6%). Orthopaedic cohorts were lower overall (4.1%) but higher in tested subgroups (12.4%); 'no specific red flags' showed 1.8% vs. 7.8%; non-cardiac bone scintigraphy was 0.49% in both denominators. Across settings, transthyretin CA predominated over light-chain CA. Several studies approached systematic screening in the general elderly; however, they were few and still applied referral criteria to second-level examinations.
conclusionThis meta-analysis shows that CA is relatively frequent in HFpEF/HFmrEF, severe AS, and LVH/HCM. To obtain reliable population estimates, future studies should test either all eligible participants or a predefined random sample, rather than only those with suspected disease. In clinical practice, screening strategies should clearly define which higher-risk individuals are referred for second-level tests, balancing diagnostic yield with feasibility.
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.