MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO A DIFFICULT CASE OF ACUTE HEART FAILURE DUE TO POSSIBILE ISOLATED CARDIAC SARCOIDOSIS
M Mapelli,G Grilli,J Campodonico,C Vignati,A Baggiano,B Majocchi,L Bianchini,M Ianniruberto,F Doni,F Fazzari,L Tassetti,G Pontone,P Agostoni
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suae036.421
2024-04-01
European Heart Journal Supplements
Abstract:Abstract Background Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is a rare, infiltrative cardiomyopathy that results from granulomatous inflammation affecting the heart with high morbidity and mortality. It is usually associated with a systemic (i.e. pulmonary) involvement, but lone heart involvement has been described. Even with extensive multidisciplinary evaluation making a firm diagnosis is difficult, especially in case of isolated CS where the endomyocardial biopsy (EBM) diagnostic yield is low (20–30%). Case Description A 71–year–old patient, heavy smoker with no previously known diseases, was admitted with a 3–month history of dyspnea. On admission he showed typical features of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A coronary angiography excluded coronary artery disease, while echocardiography (TTE), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and positron emission tomography (FDG–PET) showed a pattern consistent with a non–ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy with reduction in systolic function, and signs of active inflammation (highly suspected CS). Two electroanatomic mapping driven EBM were made but no clear histological signs of CS (i.e., granulomatous inflammation) were detected. The patient was treated with corticosteroids and HFrEF optimal medical therapy (sacubitril/valsartan, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, beta–blockers, dapagliflozin) and a temporary wearable defibrillator (LifeVest) was applied. At 2–month follow–up, despite a moderate improvement in the systolic function and HF symptoms, after a multidisciplinary discussion, considering the extensive left ventricle scar, inflammatory involvement, and the presence of multiple non–sustained ventricular tachycardia, a permanent cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) was implanted. Conclusion This case highlights how, even with (repeated) extensive multidisciplinary evaluation (TTE, CRM, FGD–PET, EBM), a definitive diagnosis of isolated CS often remains presumptive. The presence of an experienced cardiomyopathy team (HF specialists, cardiac imager, electrophysiologists, internal medicine doctor) can help in the diagnostic–therapeutic management of these patients with inflammatory heart disease.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems