Surveillance Imaging And Immunosuppression Management Of Cardiac Sarcoidosis After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Francisca Bermudez,Richa Gupta,Tania Vora,Ajay Kadakkal,Nana Afari-Armah,Cindy Bither,Johana Fajardo,Keki Balsara,Farooq H. Sheikh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.023
IF: 6.592
2024-01-01
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Abstract:Introduction Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) may present with cardiomyopathy that progresses to end-stage heart failure requiring left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. Advanced cardiac imaging including fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has emerged as a tool in the management of CS. The utility of FDG-PET in guiding immunosuppressive (IS) therapy after LVAD remains unclear. The present study aimed to examine the use of FDG-PET to monitor CS post-LVAD and to assess its clinical impact on IS treatment practices. Methods A single-center, retrospective cohort study was performed. The Japanese Circulation and Heart Rhythm Society diagnostic criteria was used to characterize CS LVAD recipients between 2013 and 2021. Results Thirty-nine CS patients underwent LVAD implantation during the study period (Figure 1). Fourteen patients (35.9%) were classified as having possible CS, 11 (28.2%) probable CS, and 14 (35.9%) definite CS. Median age of LVAD implantation was 51.5 years (IQR 44.6-58.8), 25 (64.1%) were men, and 32 (82.1%) were Black individuals. Twenty (51.3%) had prior VT/VF and 29 (74.4%) had an established diagnosis of sarcoidosis prior to LVAD, with a median age of diagnosis of 49.5 years (IQR 41.3-57.1). Pre-LVAD, cardiac FDG-PET uptake was present in 16 (41%) patients and 17 (43.4%) were treated with corticosteroids. Fifteen (38.5%) patients underwent FDG-PET post-LVAD (Figure 1). A total of 23 FDG-PET scans were performed, 8 (34.5%) of which were found to have an LVAD artifact challenging interpretation. Of the 15 patients, 12 were on IS and 3 were not on IS based on FDG-PET findings negative for active inflammation. IS was adjusted on the basis of PET findings in 6 out of 12 (50%) patients. Among these 6 patients, 3 had IS adjustments made based on surveillance only, while 3 had IS adjusted due to surveillance and IS side effects. Six of the 12 (50%) patients had IS changes made due to IS side effects. Conclusions The management of IS therapy in CS LVAD recipients is driven by FDG-PET findings, changes in clinical status and IS side effects. Surveillance imaging may help direct IS management in CS with advanced heart failure, but additional studies are required to further evaluate and establish how to best manage CS patients post-LVAD.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?