Cardiac amyloidosis masquerading as constrictive pericarditis

Primary systemic amyloidosis presenting as constrictive pericarditis

The most frequent presentation of cardiac amyloidosis is with endomyocardial deposition, and resultant restrictive cardiomyopathy. We present a case of primary systemic amyloidosis causing constrictive pericarditis (CP) and congestive heart failure without clinical evidence of endomyocardial deposition. A comprehensive evaluation by noninvasive and invasive studies facilitated the differentiation of CP from restrictive cardiomyopathy and the patient was effectively treated with pericardectomy. To our knowledge, this is the first documented case of primary systemic amyloidosis causing selective CP with successful antemortem diagnosis and treatment in a young man.

Differentiation between restrictive cardiomyopathy and constrictive pericarditis by early diastolic doppler myocardial velocity gradient at the posterior wall

BACKGROUND

The differential diagnosis between restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) and constrictive pericarditis (CP) is challenging and, despite combined information from different diagnostic tests, surgical exploration is often necessary.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A group of 55 subjects (mean age, 63+/-11 years; 36 men and 19 women) were enrolled in the study; 15 had RCM, 10 had CP, and 30 were age-matched, normal controls. The diagnosis of RCM was supported by a biopsy; in the CP group, the diagnosis was confirmed either surgically or at autopsy. All patients underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram that included the assessment of Doppler myocardial velocity gradient (MVG), as measured from the left ventricular posterior wall during the predetermined phases of the cardiac cycle. MVG was lower (P<0.01) in RCM patients compared with both CP patients and normal controls during ventricular ejection (2. 8+/-1.2 versus 4.4+/-1.0 and 4.7+/-0.8 s(-1), respectively) and rapid ventricular filling (1.9+/-0.8 versus 8.7+/-1.7 and 3.7+/-1.4 s(-1), respectively). Additionally, during isovolumic relaxation, MVG was positive in RCM patients and negative in both CP patients and normal controls (0.7+/-0.4 versus -1.0+/-0.6 and -0.4+/-0.3 s(-1), respectively; P<0.01). During atrial contraction, MVG was similarly low (P<0.01) in both RCM and CP patients compared with normal controls (1.6+/-1.7 and 1.7+/-1.8 versus 3.8+/-0.9 s(-1), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Doppler myocardial imaging-derived MVG, as measured from the left ventricular posterior wall in early diastole during both isovolumic relaxation and rapid ventricular filling, allows for the discrimination of RCM from CP.

A fatal case of constrictive pericarditis due to a marked, selective pericardial accumulation of amyloid

Distinguishing constrictive pericarditis from restrictive cardiomyopathy, usually due to amyloidosis, is a relatively frequent and difficult diagnostic problem. This report describes, for the first time, a patient with constrictive pericarditis caused by direct, extensive infiltration of the pericardium by amyloid, with only minimal amyloid in the myocardium, and a normal heart weight of 320 g. This patient demonstrates that amyloid may be predominantly deposited in the pericardium and actually cause constrictive pericarditis, as well as simulate its hemodynamic presentation by myocardial deposition. Given a clinical and hemodynamic presentation compatible with either constrictive or restrictive disease, an endomyocardial biopsy or other biopsy revealing amyloidosis does not necessarily rule out pericardial constriction that may be due to amyloid infiltration. The relationship between constrictive pericarditis, seen in this patient, and the other more common manifestations of amyloid heart disease, and the hemodynamic profiles of amyloid cardiomyopathy and constrictive pericarditis are reviewed.

Constrictive pericarditis versus restrictive cardiomyopathy: a reappraisal and update of diagnostic criteria

Distinguishing constrictive pericarditis from restrictive cardiomyopathy is a difficult clinical challenge. We review published reports in which hemodynamic criteria were used to differentiate these two diagnoses. There were 82 cases of constriction and 37 cases of restriction. The overall predictive accuracy of the difference between right and left ventricular end-diastolic pressures (RVEDP and LVEDP), RV systolic pressure, and the ratio of RVEDP to RV systolic pressure were 85%, 70%, and 76%, respectively. If all three criteria were concordant, the probability of having correctly classified the patient was greater than 90%. However, one fourth of patients could not be classified by hemodynamic criteria. There are few data to support the use of hemodynamic measurements after exercise or volume infusion to separate these two groups. Numerous recent studies have reported on the ability of left ventriculography, Doppler echocardiography, or radionuclide angiography to distinguish constriction from restriction. Many of the proposed indices appear promising, but these studies suffer from small sample size, potential selection bias, and complexity of the proposed criteria, which have limited their widespread application. New imaging technologies, such as CT scanning or MRI have been applied in a limited number of cases, but appear to be a sensitive means of detecting abnormal pericardium. Endomyocardial biopsy has proven useful in establishing the diagnosis of infiltrative cardiomyopathies, eliminating in those cases the need for surgical intervention. The finding of myocarditis must be considered a nonspecific finding that does not preclude thoracotomy. Since constrictive pericarditis is a surgically curable condition, the distinction between constrictive and restrictive disease is of critical importance. Taking into account the relative contribution of data derived from hemodynamic, imaging,and biopsy studies, we propose an algorithm for the selection of appropriate candidates for pericardial biopsy and stripping.

Yield of endomyocardial biopsy in patients with biventricular failure. Comparison of patients with normal vs reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

Twenty five patients with biventricular failure underwent endomyocardial biopsy procedures. Twelve of these 25 patients had normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Endomyocardial biopsy sampling was useful in eight of 12 patients (67 percent) with biventricular failure and normal left ventricular ejection fraction. Biopsy specimens in five of these 12 patients demonstrated endocardial or infiltrative heart disease and excluded these diseases in three other patients with constrictive pericarditis. This study suggests that the clinical presentation of biventricular failure, combined with the noninvasive determination of a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, is helpful in selecting patients for endomyocardial biopsy study. Patients with biventricular failure and normal left ventricular ejection fractions have a high probability of having pericardial or infiltrative heart disease, conditions that often can be differentiated only by analysis of myocardial tissue. Hemodynamic assessment of patients without infiltrative processes further allows one to eliminate those patients with a high likelihood of having constrictive pericardial disease.

Ventricularization of right atrial wave form in amyloid restrictive cardiomyopathy

Two patients with biopsy-proven amyloid restrictive cardiomyopathy were presented. Both cases showed ventricularization of an elevated right atrial pressure wave form in absence of tricuspid regurgitation. Possible explanations for this finding as well as its clinical implications are discussed. This observation indicates that ventricularization of right atrial pressure wave form could be a useful hemodynamic sign in amyloid restrictive cardiomyopathy in absence of tricuspid regurgitation. Furthermore, such a finding does not seem to be specific for tricuspid regurgitation.