How Often Does Apical Sparing of Longitudinal Strain Indicate the Presence of Cardiac Amyloidosis?

Abstract

Echocardiographic diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is frequently suggested by the presence of a left ventricular (LV) apical sparing pattern (ASP) on longitudinal strain (LS) assessment, the so-called "cherry on top" pattern, defined by strain magnitude preserved exclusively at the apex. However, it is unclear how frequently this strain pattern truly represents CA. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of ASP in the diagnosis of CA. We retrospectively identified consecutive adult patients who had the following studies performed within an 18-month period: (1) transthoracic echocardiogram and (2) either (a) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, (b) Technetium-Pyrophosphate (PYP) imaging, or (c) endomyocardial biopsy. LS was retrospectively measured in the apical 4-, 3-, and 2-chamber views in patients who had adequate noncontrast images (n=466). An apical sparing ratio (ASR) was calculated as (average apical strain)/[(average basal strain)+(average midventricular strain)]. Patients with ASR ≥1 were evaluated for the presence/absence of CA, using established criteria. Basic LV parameters were also measured. A total of 33 patients (7.1%) had ASP. Nine of these patients (27%) had "confirmed" CA, 2 (6.1%) "highly probable" CA, 1 (3.0%) "possible" CA, and 21 (64%) no evidence of CA. When comparing patients with and without confirmed CA, there were no significant differences in ASR, average global LS, ejection fraction, or LV mass. Patients with confirmed CA were older (76 ± 9 vs 59 ± 18years, p=0.01) and had thicker posterior wall (15 ± 3 vs 11 ± 3mm, p=0.004) with a trend toward thicker septal wall (15 ± 2 vs 12 ± 4mm, p=0.05). In conclusion, the presence of ASP on LS represents confirmed or highly probable CA in only 1/3 of patients and is more likely to indicate true CA in older patients with increased LV wall thickness. Although a larger, prospective study is needed to confirm these findings, 1/3 should be considered as a large diagnostic yield that justifies further testing, given the poor outcomes associated with CA diagnosis.