You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Neurology
Cardiac calcified amorphous tumour: an unusual aetiology for recurrent cardioembolic strokes
  1. Rishi Sharma1,
  2. Saketh Annam2,
  3. Mehmet Guler3,
  4. Bilal Ali4 and
  5. Haitham Hussein2
  1. 1Neurology, University of Minnesota Medical School Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  2. 2Neurology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  3. 3Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  4. 4Department of Cardiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to Rishi Sharma; sharm415{at}umn.edu

Abstract

We report an elderly woman with vascular risk factors and recurrent cardioembolic strokes in whom the stroke aetiology was finally ascertained to be a calcified amorphous tumour of the heart after repeated negative investigations for embolic aetiology over 2 years. This report discusses the clinical and imaging characteristics of calcified amorphous tumours of the heart with emphasis of recent advances in cardiac imaging.

  • Stroke
  • Pathology
  • Radiology

https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2023-257226

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors were responsible for drafting of the text, sourcing and editing of clinical images, investigation results, drawing original diagrams and algorithms, and critical revision for important intellectual content. All authors gave final approval of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.