BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) can manifest very similarly. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there are significant demographic and electrophysiological differences between patients with CS and ARVC. METHODS: We prospectively compared patients with proven CS or ARVC who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardias by using 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping. Furthermore, we evaluated whether the diagnostic criteria for ARVC would have excluded ARVC in patients with CS. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (13 men; mean age 44.9 years) were included. All 18 patients had mild to moderately reduced right ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (n = 8) had a significantly lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction (35.6±19.3 vs 60.6±9.4; P = .002). Patients with CS had a significantly wider QRS (0.146 vs 0.110s; P = .004). Five of 8 (63%) patients with CS fulfilled the diagnostic ARVC criteria. Ventricular tachycardias (VTs) with a left bundle branch block pattern were documented in all but one patient (with CS). Programmed ventricular stimulation induced an average of 3.7 different monomorphic VTs in patients with CS vs 1.8 in patients with ARVC (P = .01). VT significantly more often originated in the apical region of the right ventricle in CS vs ARVC (P = .001), with no other predilection sites. Ablation success and other electrophysiological parameters were not different. CONCLUSIONS: The current diagnostic ARVC guidelines do not reliably exclude patients with CS. Clinical and electrophysiological parameters that were characteristic of CS in our patients include reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a significantly wider QRS, right-sided apical VT, and more inducible forms of monomorphic VT.
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) can manifest very similarly. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there are significant demographic and electrophysiological differences between patients with CS and ARVC. METHODS: We prospectively compared patients with proven CS or ARVC who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardias by using 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping. Furthermore, we evaluated whether the diagnostic criteria for ARVC would have excluded ARVC in patients with CS. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (13 men; mean age 44.9 years) were included. All 18 patients had mild to moderately reduced right ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (n = 8) had a significantly lower mean left ventricular ejection fraction (35.6±19.3 vs 60.6±9.4; P = .002). Patients with CS had a significantly wider QRS (0.146 vs 0.110s; P = .004). Five of 8 (63%) patients with CS fulfilled the diagnostic ARVC criteria. Ventricular tachycardias (VTs) with a left bundle branch block pattern were documented in all but one patient (with CS). Programmed ventricular stimulation induced an average of 3.7 different monomorphic VTs in patients with CS vs 1.8 in patients with ARVC (P = .01). VT significantly more often originated in the apical region of the right ventricle in CS vs ARVC (P = .001), with no other predilection sites. Ablation success and other electrophysiological parameters were not different. CONCLUSIONS: The current diagnostic ARVC guidelines do not reliably exclude patients with CS. Clinical and electrophysiological parameters that were characteristic of CS in our patients include reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a significantly wider QRS, right-sided apical VT, and more inducible forms of monomorphic VT.
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Saenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Edmond M Cronin; Frank M Bogun; Philippe Maury; Petr Peichl; Minglong Chen; Narayanan Namboodiri; Luis Aguinaga; Luiz Roberto Leite; Sana M Al-Khatib; Elad Anter; Antonio Berruezo; David J Callans; Mina K Chung; Phillip Cuculich; Andre d'Avila; Barbara J Deal; Paolo Della Bella; Thomas Deneke; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Claudio Hadid; Haris M Haqqani; G Neal Kay; Rakesh Latchamsetty; Francis Marchlinski; John M Miller; Akihiko Nogami; Akash R Patel; Rajeev Kumar Pathak; Luis C Sáenz Morales; Pasquale Santangeli; John L Sapp; Andrea Sarkozy; Kyoko Soejima; William G Stevenson; Usha B Tedrow; Wendy S Tzou; Niraj Varma; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: Europace Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Joseph P Lynch; Jennifer Hwang; Jason Bradfield; Michael Fishbein; Kalyanam Shivkumar; Roderick Tung Journal: Semin Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 3.119