Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates RELAPS pattern diagnostic accuracy in cardiac amyloidosis

Systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates RELAPS pattern diagnostic accuracy in cardiac amyloido…
Photo by Scott Blake / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider RELAPS pattern accuracy varies by software platform in cardiac amyloidosis diagnosis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses the diagnostic accuracy of the left ventricular relative apical sparing (RELAPS) pattern on speckle-tracking echocardiography for detecting cardiac amyloidosis. The analysis pooled data from 3473 patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA) and 4525 comparators. The primary outcome was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC), with secondary outcomes including sensitivity and specificity.

The meta-analysis reported an overall AUC-ROC of 0.818 (95% CIs not reported) for the RELAPS pattern. For AL-CA, the AUC-ROC was 0.876, with sensitivity of 59.8% (95% CIs 41.1% to 76.0%) and specificity of 92.7% (95% CIs 83.6% to 96.9%). For ATTR-CA, the AUC-ROC was 0.822, with sensitivity of 63.8% (95% CIs 51.2% to 74.8%) and specificity of 84.4% (95% CIs 76.7% to 89.9%).

Performance varied significantly by analysis software. GE EchoPAC yielded an AUC-ROC of 0.822, while Philips QLAB showed an AUC-ROC of 0.904. TomTec demonstrated an AUC-ROC of 0.806. The authors note that performance varies by analysis software and threshold. This variation highlights the importance of standardizing measurement protocols and defining prespecified cut-offs to ensure consistent diagnostic interpretation across different clinical settings.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is underdiagnosed due to non-specific clinical and echocardiographic features. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the left ventricular relative apical sparing (RELAPS) pattern on speckle-tracking echocardiography. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane was conducted through August 2025. RELAPS was defined as the average apical longitudinal strain divided by the sum of average basal and average middle left ventricular longitudinal strains. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using a bivariate random-effects model. Subgroup analyses by CA subtype and echocardiogram software, and meta-regression for clinical variables, were performed. Optimal cut-offs were determined by maximising the Youden index. Analyses were conducted in R V.4.4.1. RESULTS: Forty-one studies (3473 CA; 4525 comparators) were included. Pooled analysis yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.818, with sensitivity 65.9% (95% CIs 59.2% to 72.0%) and specificity 83.1% (CI 78.5% to 86.8%). The diagnostic oods ratio (DOR) was 9.54 (CI 7.41 to 12.10). In subtype analyses, immunoglobulin light chains (AL-CA) showed AUC-ROC 0.876, sensitivity 59.8% (CI 41.1% to 76.0%) and specificity 92.7% (CI 83.6% to 96.9%); transthyretin (ATTR-CA) showed AUC-ROC 0.822, sensitivity 63.8% (CI 51.2% to 74.8%) and specificity 84.4% (CI 76.7% to 89.9%), with no significant differences between subtypes (sensitivity p=0.760; specificity p=0.172). Three echocardiography software systems were evaluated. GE EchoPAC (26 studies) achieved an AUC-ROC of 0.822 (sensitivity 70.4% (CI 64.1% to 76.0%), specificity 81.2% (CI 75.7% to 85.7%)). Philips QLAB (four studies) performed comparably (AUC-ROC 0.904; sensitivity 67.6% (CI 31.2% to 90.6%), specificity 92.7% (CI 73.6% to 98.3%)). In contrast, TomTec (four studies) had an AUC-ROC of 0.806, but its sensitivity (31.1% (CI 9.4% to 66.3%)) was significantly lower than GE EchoPAC's (p<0.001), despite a similar specificity (93.6% (CI 78.8% to 98.3%)). CONCLUSION: RELAPS provides moderate diagnostic accuracy for identifying CA, with good specificity and modest sensitivity. Performance varies by analysis software and threshold, underscoring the need for standardised measurement and prespecified cut-offs.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.