Vaibhav R Vaidya1, Anas A Abudan1, Krithika Vasudevan1, Ghanshyam Shantha2, Leslie T Cooper3, Suraj Kapa1, Peter A Noseworthy1, Yong-Mei Cha1, Samuel J Asirvatham1,4, Abhishek J Deshmukh5. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55906, USA. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Iowa, Iowa, IA, USA. 3. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55906, USA. deshmukh.abhishek@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Electroanatomic mapping (EAM) has been utilized as a modality to improve the sensitivity of endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). We sought to systematically review published medical literature on the efficacy and safety of EAM-guided EMB. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid CDR, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies where EAM was used for EMB. Data abstracted included demographics, indications, final diagnoses, histology findings, and technical details of biopsy extraction. Test characteristics including sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and area under curve (AUC) were calculated on a per-patient and per-biopsy level. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (9 case series, 8 case reports) were included in this systematic review. EAM-guided EMB was performed in 148 patients and results of 207 individual biopsies were available for analysis. The most common indications for EAM-guided EMB were suspected arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), myocarditis, and cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). The pooled sensitivity and specificity for EAM-guided EMB for the diagnosis of cardiomyopathies (ARVC, myocarditis, CS, and other specific diagnoses) were 92 and 58% on per-biopsy analysis and 100 and 39% on per-patient analysis. Among the individual components of abnormal EGMs, abnormal unipolar EGM had the best AUC on per-biopsy (0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.90) and per-patient analysis (0.84, 95% CI 0.68-0.92). EAM-guided EMB appears safe. Adverse events included 1 hemopericardium, 2 minimal asymptomatic pericardial effusions, and 1 femoral hematoma. CONCLUSIONS: EAM-guided EMB is a safe and efficacious method and might improve test characteristics over conventional fluoroscopy-guided biopsy.
PURPOSE: Electroanatomic mapping (EAM) has been utilized as a modality to improve the sensitivity of endomyocardial biopsy (EMB). We sought to systematically review published medical literature on the efficacy and safety of EAM-guided EMB. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid CDR, Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies where EAM was used for EMB. Data abstracted included demographics, indications, final diagnoses, histology findings, and technical details of biopsy extraction. Test characteristics including sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and area under curve (AUC) were calculated on a per-patient and per-biopsy level. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (9 case series, 8 case reports) were included in this systematic review. EAM-guided EMB was performed in 148 patients and results of 207 individual biopsies were available for analysis. The most common indications for EAM-guided EMB were suspected arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), myocarditis, and cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). The pooled sensitivity and specificity for EAM-guided EMB for the diagnosis of cardiomyopathies (ARVC, myocarditis, CS, and other specific diagnoses) were 92 and 58% on per-biopsy analysis and 100 and 39% on per-patient analysis. Among the individual components of abnormal EGMs, abnormal unipolar EGM had the best AUC on per-biopsy (0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.90) and per-patient analysis (0.84, 95% CI 0.68-0.92). EAM-guided EMB appears safe. Adverse events included 1 hemopericardium, 2 minimal asymptomatic pericardial effusions, and 1 femoral hematoma. CONCLUSIONS:EAM-guided EMB is a safe and efficacious method and might improve test characteristics over conventional fluoroscopy-guided biopsy.
Authors: Dirk G Dechering; Simon Kochhäuser; Stephan Zellerhoff; Gerrit Frommeyer; Lars Eckardt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Tomas Konecny; Peter A Noseworthy; Suraj Kapa; Leslie T Cooper; Siva K Mulpuru; Gurpreet S Sandhu; Samuel Asirvatham Journal: Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2015-03-02
Authors: Pablo B Nery; Arieh Keren; Jeff Healey; Eugene Leug; Rob S Beanlands; David H Birnie Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Andrea Avella; Giulia d'Amati; Augusto Pappalardo; Federica Re; Paola Francesca Silenzi; Francesco Laurenzi; Piergiuseppe DE Girolamo; Gemma Pelargonio; Antonio Dello Russo; Pasquale Baratta; Giuseppe Messina; Paolo Zecchi; Elisabetta Zachara; Claudio Tondo Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2008-06-12
Authors: Stepan Havranek; Tomas Palecek; Tomas Kovarnik; Ivana Vitkova; Miroslav Psenicka; Ales Linhart; Dan Wichterle Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Agata Tymińska; Krzysztof Ozierański; Aleksandra Skwarek; Agnieszka Kapłon-Cieślicka; Anna Baritussio; Marcin Grabowski; Renzo Marcolongo; Alida Lp Caforio Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-01-30
Authors: Enrico Ammirati; Andrea Buono; Francesco Moroni; Lorenzo Gigli; John R Power; Michele Ciabatti; Andrea Garascia; Eric D Adler; Maurizio Pieroni Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: Elliott D Crouser; Lisa A Maier; Kevin C Wilson; Catherine A Bonham; Adam S Morgenthau; Karen C Patterson; Eric Abston; Richard C Bernstein; Ron Blankstein; Edward S Chen; Daniel A Culver; Wonder Drake; Marjolein Drent; Alicia K Gerke; Michael Ghobrial; Praveen Govender; Nabeel Hamzeh; W Ennis James; Marc A Judson; Liz Kellermeyer; Shandra Knight; Laura L Koth; Venerino Poletti; Subha V Raman; Melissa H Tukey; Gloria E Westney; Robert P Baughman Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jarieke C Hoogendoorn; Maarten K Ninaber; Sebastiaan R D Piers; Marta de Riva; Robert W Grauss; Frank M Bogun; Katja Zeppenfeld Journal: Europace Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Carsten Tschöpe; Enrico Ammirati; Biykem Bozkurt; Alida L P Caforio; Leslie T Cooper; Stephan B Felix; Joshua M Hare; Bettina Heidecker; Stephane Heymans; Norbert Hübner; Sebastian Kelle; Karin Klingel; Henrike Maatz; Abdul S Parwani; Frank Spillmann; Randall C Starling; Hiroyuki Tsutsui; Petar Seferovic; Sophie Van Linthout Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 49.421