International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2019
Electrophysiology study for risk stratification in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis and abnormal cardiac imaging.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Okada David R, Smith John, Derakhshan Arsalan, Gowani Zain, Zimmerman Stefan L, Misra Satish, Berger Ronald D, Calkins Hugh, Tandri Harikrishna, Chrispin Jonathan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Abnormalities on cardiac imaging (cardiac magnetic resonance imaging [CMR] or positron emission tomography [PET]), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and electrophysiology study (EPS) all predict ventricular arrhythmias (VA) in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). We sought to assess the utility of EPS in patients with CS and abnormal cardiac imaging, focusing on those with LVEF >35%.
METHODS: We identified all patients treated at our institution from 2000 to 2017 who: 1.) had probable or definite CS; 2.) had either late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on CMR or abnormal 18-flourodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake on PET, and 3.) had undergone EPS. The primary endpoint was VA during follow up.
RESULTS: Twenty five patients were included, of whom 10 (40%) had positive EPS. During a mean follow-up of 4.8 +/- 3.4 years, 11 (44%) patients had VA. The positive predictive value (PPV) of EPS for VA was 100% and the negative predictive value (NPV) of EPS for VA was 93%. Among 12 patients with LVEF >35% and no prior VA, the PPV of EPS for VA was 100% and the NPV of EPS for VA was 90%.
CONCLUSION: EPS may help with risk stratification in patients with CS and abnormal imaging, especially those without conventional indications for ICD placement. Among patients with LVEF >35% and no history of prior VA, a negative EPS has good positive and negative predictive value for future VA events.
METHODS: We identified all patients treated at our institution from 2000 to 2017 who: 1.) had probable or definite CS; 2.) had either late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on CMR or abnormal 18-flourodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake on PET, and 3.) had undergone EPS. The primary endpoint was VA during follow up.
RESULTS: Twenty five patients were included, of whom 10 (40%) had positive EPS. During a mean follow-up of 4.8 +/- 3.4 years, 11 (44%) patients had VA. The positive predictive value (PPV) of EPS for VA was 100% and the negative predictive value (NPV) of EPS for VA was 93%. Among 12 patients with LVEF >35% and no prior VA, the PPV of EPS for VA was 100% and the NPV of EPS for VA was 90%.
CONCLUSION: EPS may help with risk stratification in patients with CS and abnormal imaging, especially those without conventional indications for ICD placement. Among patients with LVEF >35% and no history of prior VA, a negative EPS has good positive and negative predictive value for future VA events.