Yan Yatsynovich1, Damian Valencia1, Mikhail Petrov2, Juan David Linares1, Mufti M Rahman2, Nathaniel Dittoe3,4,5,6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Kettering Medical Center, Dayton, OH, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Norwalk Hospital, Norwalk, CT, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Kettering Medical Center, Dayton, OH, USA. Nathaniel.Dittoe@ketteringhealth.org. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Kettering Medical Center, Dayton, OH, USA. Nathaniel.Dittoe@ketteringhealth.org. 5. Boonshoft School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA. Nathaniel.Dittoe@ketteringhealth.org. 6. Kettering Medical Center, 3535 Southern Boulevard, Dayton, OH, 45429, USA. Nathaniel.Dittoe@ketteringhealth.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The non-specific symptom profile and subclinical nature of disease along with variable region of cardiac involvement in systemic sarcoidosis make the diagnosis particularly challenging. The yield of endomyocardial biopsy, a gold standard for diagnosis, is not high unless coupled with additional imaging modalities to detect regional involvement. This review is focused on highlighting the major recent advances in imaging modalities and diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis. RECENT FINDINGS: There has been much interest and increasing research focused on developing newer and improved imaging modalities to establish diagnosis. CMR and 18F- FDG-PET are now considered imaging modalities of choice in most centers worldwide, but the data comparing both methodologies head-to-head is limited. Nevertheless, novel radiotracers (i.e. 68Ga-DOTANOC, 18F-Flurpiridaz, 13N-Ammonia) and hybrid combination PET/CMR imaging are coming to spotlight with improved sensitivity and specificity for earlier detection of myocardial sarcoid. As CMR and PET are showing increased utilization in cardiac sarcoidosis, 201Th-SPECT, 99mTc MDP SPECT, 67Ga Scintigraphy, and 82Rb PET are falling out of favor. Newer imaging modalities, radionuclide tracers, and hybrid PET/CMR combinations have been promising in better detecting cardiac sarcoidosis and are currently being evaluated in larger trials.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The non-specific symptom profile and subclinical nature of disease along with variable region of cardiac involvement in systemic sarcoidosis make the diagnosis particularly challenging. The yield of endomyocardial biopsy, a gold standard for diagnosis, is not high unless coupled with additional imaging modalities to detect regional involvement. This review is focused on highlighting the major recent advances in imaging modalities and diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis. RECENT FINDINGS: There has been much interest and increasing research focused on developing newer and improved imaging modalities to establish diagnosis. CMR and 18F- FDG-PET are now considered imaging modalities of choice in most centers worldwide, but the data comparing both methodologies head-to-head is limited. Nevertheless, novel radiotracers (i.e. 68Ga-DOTANOC, 18F-Flurpiridaz, 13N-Ammonia) and hybrid combination PET/CMR imaging are coming to spotlight with improved sensitivity and specificity for earlier detection of myocardial sarcoid. As CMR and PET are showing increased utilization in cardiac sarcoidosis, 201Th-SPECT, 99mTc MDP SPECT, 67Ga Scintigraphy, and 82Rb PET are falling out of favor. Newer imaging modalities, radionuclide tracers, and hybrid PET/CMR combinations have been promising in better detecting cardiac sarcoidosis and are currently being evaluated in larger trials.
Authors: Binu Philips; Srinivasa Madhavan; Cynthia A James; Anneline S J M te Riele; Brittney Murray; Crystal Tichnell; Aditya Bhonsale; Saman Nazarian; Daniel P Judge; Hugh Calkins; Harikrishna Tandri; Alan Cheng Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2014-03-01
Authors: Padmaja Yalamanchili; Eric Wexler; Megan Hayes; Ming Yu; Jody Bozek; Mikhail Kagan; Heike S Radeke; Michael Azure; Ajay Purohit; David S Casebier; Simon P Robinson Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: O Bruder; S Schneider; G Pilz; A C van Rossum; J Schwitter; D Nothnagel; M Lombardi; S Buss; A Wagner; S Petersen; S Greulich; C Jensen; E Nagel; U Sechtem; H Mahrholdt Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Constantin Lapa; Theresa Reiter; Malte Kircher; Andreas Schirbel; Rudolf A Werner; Theo Pelzer; Carmen Pizarro; Dirk Skowasch; Lena Thomas; Ulrike Schlesinger-Irsch; Daniel Thomas; Ralph A Bundschuh; Wolfgang R Bauer; Florian C Gärtner Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-11-22
Authors: Lynda E Rosenfeld; Mina K Chung; Clifford V Harding; Paolo Spagnolo; Johan Grunewald; Jason Appelbaum; William H Sauer; Daniel A Culver; Jose A Joglar; Ben A Lin; Christine L Jellis; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Deborah H Kwon; Edward J Miller; Paul C Cremer; Frank Bogun; Jordana Kron; Ashley Bock; Davendra Mehta; Paul Leis; Konstantinos C Siontis; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Thomas Crawford; Peter Zimetbaum; Edwin T Zishiri; Jagmeet P Singh; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Jonathan Chrispin; Syed Quadri; Logan L Vincent; Kristen K Patton; Steven Kalbfleish; Thomas D Callahan; Francis Murgatroyd; Marc A Judson; David Birnie; David R Okada; Christopher Maulion; Pavan Bhat; Lavanya Bellumkonda; Ron Blankstein; Richard K Cheng; Maryjane A Farr; Jerry D Estep Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-02-16
Authors: Nisha A Gilotra; Jan M Griffin; Noelle Pavlovic; Brian A Houston; Jessica Chasler; Colleen Goetz; Jonathan Chrispin; Michelle Sharp; Edward K Kasper; Edward S Chen; Ron Blankstein; Leslie T Cooper; Emer Joyce; Farooq H Sheikh Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2021-07-11 Impact factor: 5.712