OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the method used to perform electrogram-guided EMB and correlate electrogram characteristics with pathological and clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND: Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is valuable in determining the underlying etiology of a cardiomyopathy. The sensitivity, however, for focal disorders, such as lymphocytic myocarditis and cardiac sarcoidosis (CS), is low. The sensitivity of routine fluoroscopically guided EMB is low. Abnormal intracardiac electrograms are seen at sites of myocardial disease. However, the exact value of electrogram-guided EMB is unknown. METHODS: We report 11 patients who underwent electrogram-guided EMB for evaluation of myocarditis and CS. RESULTS: Of 40 total biopsy specimens taken from 11 patients, 19 had electrogram voltage <5 mV, all of which resulted in histopathologic abnormality (100% specificity and positive predictive value). A voltage amplitude cutoff value of 5 mV had substantially higher sensitivity (70% vs. 26%) and negative predictive value (62%) than 1.5 mV. Abnormal electrogram appearance at biopsy site had good sensitivity (67%) and specificity (92%) in predicting abnormal myocardium. Normal signals with voltage >5 mV signified normal myocardium with no significant diagnostic yield. Biopsy results guided therapy in all patients, including 5 with active myocarditis or CS, all of whom subsequently received immunosuppressive therapy. There were no procedural complications. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected myocarditis or CS, electrogram-guided EMB targeting sites with abnormal or low-amplitude electrograms may increase the diagnostic yield for detecting abnormal pathological findings.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the method used to perform electrogram-guided EMB and correlate electrogram characteristics with pathological and clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND: Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is valuable in determining the underlying etiology of a cardiomyopathy. The sensitivity, however, for focal disorders, such as lymphocytic myocarditis and cardiac sarcoidosis (CS), is low. The sensitivity of routine fluoroscopically guided EMB is low. Abnormal intracardiac electrograms are seen at sites of myocardial disease. However, the exact value of electrogram-guided EMB is unknown. METHODS: We report 11 patients who underwent electrogram-guided EMB for evaluation of myocarditis and CS. RESULTS: Of 40 total biopsy specimens taken from 11 patients, 19 had electrogram voltage <5 mV, all of which resulted in histopathologic abnormality (100% specificity and positive predictive value). A voltage amplitude cutoff value of 5 mV had substantially higher sensitivity (70% vs. 26%) and negative predictive value (62%) than 1.5 mV. Abnormal electrogram appearance at biopsy site had good sensitivity (67%) and specificity (92%) in predicting abnormal myocardium. Normal signals with voltage >5 mV signified normal myocardium with no significant diagnostic yield. Biopsy results guided therapy in all patients, including 5 with active myocarditis or CS, all of whom subsequently received immunosuppressive therapy. There were no procedural complications. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected myocarditis or CS, electrogram-guided EMB targeting sites with abnormal or low-amplitude electrograms may increase the diagnostic yield for detecting abnormal pathological findings.
Authors: J Narula; B A Khaw; G W Dec; I F Palacios; J B Newell; J F Southern; J T Fallon; H W Strauss; E Haber; T Yasuda Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 1996 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: G M Felker; R E Thompson; J M Hare; R H Hruban; D E Clemetson; D L Howard; K L Baughman; E K Kasper Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-04-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: D M Cassidy; J A Vassallo; J M Miller; D S Poll; A E Buxton; F E Marchlinski; M E Josephson Journal: Circulation Date: 1986-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: L N Horowitz; H R Kay; S P Kutalek; K F Discigil; C R Webb; A M Greenspan; S R Spielman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1987-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Sanjay Divakaran; Garrick C Stewart; Neal K Lakdawala; Robert F Padera; Wunan Zhou; Akshay S Desai; Michael M Givertz; Mandeep R Mehra; Raymond Y Kwong; Sandeep S Hedgire; Brian B Ghoshhajra; Viviany R Taqueti; Hicham Skali; Sharmila Dorbala; Ron Blankstein; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Rob S Beanlands; Wengen Chen; Sharmila Dorbala; Edward J Miller; Venkatesh L Murthy; David H Birnie; Edward S Chen; Leslie T Cooper; Roderick H Tung; Eric S White; Salvador Borges-Neto; Marcelo F Di Carli; Robert J Gropler; Terrence D Ruddy; Thomas H Schindler; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Rob S Beanlands; Wengen Chen; Sharmila Dorbala; Edward J Miller; Venkatesh L Murthy; David H Birnie; Edward S Chen; Leslie T Cooper; Roderick H Tung; Eric S White; Salvador Borges-Neto; Marcelo F Di Carli; Robert J Gropler; Terrence D Ruddy; Thomas H Schindler; Ron Blankstein Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ammar M Killu; Nishaki Mehta; Qi Zheng; Piotr Sobieszczyk; Usha B Tedrow; William G Stevenson; Roy M John Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-03-24 Impact factor: 1.900