METHODS: We identified all of our endomyocardial biopsyproven cardiac amyloidosis patients from January 2010 to January 2018 and reviewed their medical records. All patients echocardiographic and ECG findings reviewed and analysed comparing to basic mean population value.
RESULTS: In total there are 13 biopsy-proven cardiac amyloidosis patients. All of the biopsies shows light chain (AL) amyloid. Majority of the patients (8, 61.5%) is male, and most of our patients (8, 61.5%) is Chinese. All seven patients on whom we performed deformation imaging have apical sparing pattern on longitudinal strain echocardiogram. Mean ejection fraction is 49.3%, (SD=7.9). All patients have concentric left ventricular hypertrophy and right ventricular hypertrophy. Diastolic dysfunction was present in all of our patients with nine out of 13 patients (69.2%) having restrictive filling patterns (E/A ≥2.0 E/e' ≥15). On electrocardiogram, 12 (92%) patients have prolonged PR interval (median 200ms, IQR 76.50ms) and 9 (69.2%) patients have pseudoinfarct pattern.
CONCLUSION: Echocardiography plays an important role in diagnosing cardiac amyloidosis. The findings of concentric left ventricular hypertrophy with preserved ejection fraction without increased in loading condition should alert the clinician towards its possibility. This is further supported by right ventricular hypertrophy and particularly longitudinal strain imaging showing apical sparing pattern.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the safety of outpatient sotalol commencement.
METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective, observational study of patients initiated on sotalol in an outpatient setting. Serial electrocardiogram monitoring at day 3, day 7, 1 month, and subsequently as clinically indicated was performed. Corrected QT (QTc) interval and clinical events were evaluated.
RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2023, 880 consecutive patients who were commenced on sotalol were evaluated. Indications were atrial fibrillation/flutter in 87.3% (n = 768), ventricular arrhythmias in 9.9% (n = 87), and other arrhythmias in 2.8% (n = 25). The daily dosage at initiation was 131.0 ± 53.2 mg/d. The QTc interval increased from baseline (431 ± 32 ms) to 444 ± 37 ms (day 3) and 440 ± 33 ms (day 7) after sotalol initiation (P < .001). Within the first week, QTc prolongation led to the discontinuation of sotalol in 4 and dose reduction in 1. No ventricular arrhythmia, syncope, or death was observed during the first week. Dose reduction due to asymptomatic bradycardia occurred in 3 and discontinuation due to dyspnea in 3 within the first week. Overall, 1.1% developed QTc prolongation (>500 ms/>25% from baseline); 4 within 3 days, 1 within 1 week, 4 within 60 days, and 1 after >3 years. Discontinuation of sotalol due to other adverse effects occurred in 41 patients within the first month of therapy.
CONCLUSION: Sotalol initiation in an outpatient setting with protocolized follow-up is safe, with no recorded sotalol-related mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, or syncope. There was a low incidence of significant QTc prolongation necessitating discontinuation within the first month of treatment. Importantly, we observed a small incidence of late QT prolongation, highlighting the need for vigilant outpatient surveillance of individuals on sotalol.
METHODS: Echocardiographic study of 50 male, female athletes (MA, FA) and non-athletes (MNA, FNA) age 18 to 30 years. These athletes participate in sports with predominantly endurance component. All participants exhibit no known medical illnesses or symptoms.
RESULTS: MA have thicker wall (IVSd) than MNA. No MA have IVSd > 1.2 cm and no FA have IVSd > 1.0 cm. Left ventricle internal dimension (LVIDd), left ventricle end diastolic volume index (LVEDVi) is bigger in athletes. None have LVIDd > 5.8 cm. Right ventricle fractional area change (FAC) is lower in athletes. (MA vs MNA, p = 0.013, FA vs FNA, p = 0.025). Athletes have higher septal and lateral e' (Septal e'; MA 13.57 ± 2.66 cm/s vs MNA 11.46 ± 2.93 cm/s, p 1.2 cm and/or LVIDd > 5.8 cm. There is no difference in GLS, RVFWS and GCS but athletes have smaller LArS and LAbS.