Heart transplantation (HTx) is a valid therapeutic option for end-stage heart failure secondary to cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) or giant-cell myocarditis (GCM). However, post-HTx outcomes in patients with inflammatory cardiomyopathy (ICM) have been poorly investigated. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Science Citation Index, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, screened the gray literature, and contacted experts in the field. We included studies comparing post-HTx survival, acute cellular rejection, and disease recurrence in patients with and without ICM. Data were synthesized by a random‐effects meta‐analysis. We screened 11,933 articles, of which 14 were considered eligible. In a pooled analysis, post-HTx survival was higher in CS than non-CS patients after 1 year (risk ratio [RR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–1.17; I2 = 0%) and 5 years (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52–0.91; I2 = 0%), but statistically significant only after 5 years. During the first-year post-HTx, the risk of acute cellular rejection was similar for patients with and without CS, but after 5 years, it was lower in those with CS (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.03–0.72; I2 = 0%). No difference in post-HTx survival was observed between patients with and without GCM after 1 year (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.05–2.28; I2 = 0%) or 5 years (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.42–1.54; I2 = 0%). During post-HTx follow-up, recurrence of CS and GCM occurred in 5% and 8% of patients, respectively. Post-HTx outcomes in patients with CS and GCM are comparable with cardiac recipients with other heart failure etiologies. Patients with ICM should not be disqualified from HTx. Graphic abstract
Background Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) and giant cell myocarditis (GCM) are rare diseases that share some similarities, but also display different clinical and histopathological features. We aimed to compare the demographics, clinical presentation, and outcome of patients diagnosed with CS or GCM. Method We compared the clinical data and outcome of all adult patients with CS (n = 71) or GCM (n = 21) diagnosed at our center between 1991 and 2020. Results The median (interquartile range) follow-up time for patients with CS and GCM was 33.5 [6.5–60.9] and 2.98 [0.6–40.9] months, respectively. In the entire cohort, heart failure (HF) was the most common presenting manifestation (31%), followed by ventricular arrhythmias (25%). At presentation, a left ventricular ejection fraction of < 50% was found in 54% of the CS compared to 86% of the GCM patients (P = 0.014), while corresponding proportions for right ventricular dysfunction were 24% and 52% (P = 0.026), respectively. Advanced HF (NYHA ≥ IIIB) was less common in CS (31%) than in GCM (76%). CS patients displayed significantly lower circulating levels of natriuretic peptides (P < 0.001) and troponins (P = 0.014). Eighteen percent of patients with CS included in the survival analysis reached the composite endpoint of death or heart transplantation (HTx) compared to 68% of patients with GCM (P < 0.001). Conclusion GCM has a more fulminant clinical course than CS with severe biventricular failure, higher levels of circulating biomarkers and an increased need for HTx. The histopathologic diagnosis remained key determinant even after adjustment for markers of cardiac dysfunction.
We present the case of a 47-year-old man with a history of recurrent episodes of frontal headache, fever, and chest discomfort as well as longstanding, difficult to treat arterial hypertension. Clinical work-up revealed the unexpected finding of an underlying pheochromocytoma as well as recent “silent” myocardial infarction. Our case highlights the importance of paying attention to incidental cardiac findings on somatostatin receptor positron emission tomography/computed tomography, as routinely performed in patients with clinically suspected neuroendocrine tumors. These incidental cardiac findings cannot only indicate a primary or secondary (metastatic) neuroendocrine tumor, but also areas of myocardial inflammation, as somatostatin receptors cannot only be found on the majority of neuroendocrine tumors, but also among other tissues on the surface of activated macrophages and lymphocytes. The detection of myocardial inflammation is of clinical importance and its underlying etiology should be evaluated to prompt eventual necessary treatment, as it is a potential driving force for cardiac remodeling and poor prognosis.
Patient had fever and general fatigue while on holiday. Day 0 On the flight back home, he had progressive chest pain, dyspnea, and syncope. Day 0-2 h after admission At hospital admission, elevated inflammatory markers and positive troponins were observed. Electrocardiogram showed atrial fibrillation at 160 beats/min and new onset complete right bundle branch block (RBBB). Day 0-12 h after admission Transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE), computer tomography, and coronary angiogram were performed.Day 2 Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was performed.Day 7 Endomyocardial biopsy showed eosinophilic myocarditis. Treatment with high-dose corticosteroids started. Within 21 days from admissionThe patient was diagnosed with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangitis (EGPA) and was treated by high-dose corticosteroids and intravenous cyclophosphamide.2 months after discharge Repeated TTE and CMR showed stationary results. The eosinophilic count was normal, and the patient was doing well. Treatment is planned to continue with methotrexate and prednisolone in tapering doses.
IntroductionCardiomyopathy is the fourth most common cause of heart failure. The spectrum of cardiomyopathies may be impacted by changes in environmental factors and the prognosis may be influenced by modern treatment. The aim of this study is to create a prospective clinical cohort, the Sahlgrenska CardioMyoPathy Centre (SCMPC) study, and compare patients with cardiomyopathies in terms of phenotype, symptoms, and survival.MethodsThe SCMPC study was founded in 2018 by including patients with all types of suspected cardiomyopathies. This study included data on patient characteristics, background, family history, symptoms, diagnostic examinations, and treatment including heart transplantation and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Patients were categorized by the type of cardiomyopathy on the basis of the diagnostic criteria laid down by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) working group on myocardial and pericardial diseases. The primary outcomes were death, heart transplantation, or MCS, analyzed by Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional regression, adjusted for age, gender, LVEF and QRS width on ECG in milliseconds.ResultsIn all, 461 patients and 73.1% men with a mean age of 53.6 ± 16 years were included in the study. The most common diagnosis was dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), followed by cardiac sarcoidosis and myocarditis. Dyspnea was the most common initial symptom in patients with DCM and amyloidosis, while patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) presented with ventricular arrythmias. Patients with ARVC, left-ventricular non-compaction cardiomyopathy (LVNC), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and DCM had the longest time from the debut of symptoms until inclusion in the study. Overall, 86% of the patients survived without heart transplantation or MCS after 2.5 years. The primary outcome differed among the cardiomyopathies, where the worst prognosis was reported for ARVC, LVNC, and cardiac amyloidosis. In a Cox regression analysis, it was found that ARVC and LVNC were independently associated with an increased risk of death, heart transplantation, or MCS compared with DCM. Further, female gender, a lower LVEF, and a wider QRS width were associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome.ConclusionsThe SCMPC database offers a unique opportunity to explore the spectrum of cardiomyopathies over time. There is a large difference in characteristics and symptoms at debut and a remarkable difference in outcome, where the worst prognosis was reported for ARVC, LVNC, and cardiac amyloidosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.