Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy

Etiologies and predictors of mortality in an all-comer population of patients with non-ischemic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Despite progress in diagnosis and therapy of heart failure (HF), etiology and risk stratification remain elusive in many patients.

METHODS

The My Biopsy HF Study (German clinical trials register number: DRKS22178) is a retrospective monocentric study investigating an all-comer population of patients with unexplained HF based on a thorough workup including endomyocardial biopsy (EMB).

RESULTS

655 patients (70.9% men, median age 55 [45/66] years) with non-ischemic, non-valvular HF were included in the analyses. 489 patients were diagnosed with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 52 patients with HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and 114 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). After a median follow-up of 4.6 (2.5/6.6) years, 94 deaths were enumerated (HFrEF: 68; HFmrEF: 8; HFpEF: 18), equating to mortality rates of 3.3% and 11.6% for patients with HFrEF, 7.7% and 15.4% for patients with HFmrEF and 5.3% and 11.4% for patients with HFpEF after 1 and 5 years, respectively. In EMB, we detected a variety of putative etiologies of HF, including incidental cardiac amyloidosis (CA, 5.8%). In multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities only CA, age and NYHA functional class III + IV remained independently associated with all-cause mortality (CA: HRperui 3.13, 95% CI 1.5-6.51; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In an all-comer population of patients presenting with HF of unknown etiology, incidental finding of CA stands out to be independently associated with all-cause mortality. Our findings suggest that prospective trials would be helpful to test the added value of a systematic and holistic work-up of HF of unknown etiology.

A nationwide trend analysis on the usage of endomyocardial biopsy

BACKGROUND

Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is a safe procedure performed in diagnostic work-up of cardiac disease.

HYPOTHESIS

Data regarding temporal trends of total numbers, characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and complications of patients undergoing EMB are sparse.

METHODS

The nationwide German inpatient sample (2005-2019) was used for this analysis. Patient cases of EBM during the 5-year cycles from 2005 to 2009, 2010 to 2014, and 2015 to 2019 were compared, and temporal trends regarding total numbers and presumable major and minor EMB-associated complications were investigated.

RESULTS

Overall, 67 745 EMB were performed in Germany 2005-2019. Total number of EMB increased from 3083 in 2005 to 5646 in 2019 (β 0.40 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.43], p < .001). Among these EMB, 19 083 (28.2%) were performed during the period 2005-2009, 22 867 (33.7%) 2010-2014, and 25 795 (38.1%) between 2015 and 2019. The proportion of patients aged ≥70 years was highest 2015-2019 (2005-2009: 9.3%; 2010-2014: 13.8%; 2015-2019: 16.1%, p < .001) and the most aggravated comorbidity profile (Charlson Comorbidity Index 2.25 ± 1.93; 2.67 ± 2.14; 3.01 ± 2.29, p < .001) was also detected 2015-2019. Major complications occurred less often in the period 2015-2019 compared to 2005-2009 (odds ratio [OR] 0.921 [95% CI 0.893-0.950], p < .001), whereas minor complications were more frequently observed between 2015 and 2019 (OR 1.067 [95% CI 1.042-1.093], p < .001). While a decrease in major complications was detected irrespective of age, an increase in minor complications was identified only in patients between 30-59 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual numbers of EMB increased significantly in Germany 2005-2019. Patients who underwent EMB in recent years were older and showed an aggravated comorbidity profile accompanied by fewer major complications, underscoring safety of the procedure.

Endomyocardial biopsy in the clinical context: current indications and challenging scenarios

Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an invasive procedure originally developed for the monitoring of heart transplant rejection. Over the year, this procedure has gained a fundamental complementary role in the diagnostic work-up of several cardiac disorders, including cardiomyopathies, myocarditis, drug-related cardiotoxicity, amyloidosis, other infiltrative and storage disorders, and cardiac tumours. Major advances in EMB equipment and techniques for histological analysis have significantly improved diagnostic accuracy of EMB. In recent years, advanced imaging modalities such as echocardiography with three-dimensional and myocardial strain analysis, cardiac magnetic resonance and bone scintigraphy have transformed the non-invasive approach to diagnosis and prognostic stratification of several cardiac diseases. Therefore, it emerges the need to re-define the current role of EMB for diagnostic work-up and management of cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this review is to summarize current knowledge on EMB in light of the most recent evidences and to discuss current indications, including challenging scenarios encountered in clinical practice.

State-of-the-Art of Endomyocardial Biopsy on Acute Myocarditis and Chronic Inflammatory Cardiomyopathy

Purpose of Review

Histologic evidence of myocardial inflammatory infiltrate not secondary to an ischemic injury is required by current diagnostic criteria to reach a definite diagnosis of myocarditis. Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is therefore often indicated for the diagnosis of myocarditis, although it may lack sufficient sensitivity considering the limited possibility of myocardial sampling. Improving the diagnostic yield and utility of EMB is of high priority in the fields of heart failure cardiology and myocarditis in particular. The aim of the present review is to highlight indications, strengths, and shortcomings of current EMB techniques, and discuss innovations currently being tested in ongoing clinical studies, especially in the setting of acute myocarditis and chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathy.

Recent Findings

EMB provides unique diagnostic elements and prognostic information which can effectively guide the treatment of myocarditis. Issues affecting the diagnostic performance in the setting of acute myocarditis and chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathies will be discussed in this review in the light of recent expert consensus documents on the management of these conditions and on indication to EMB. Recent innovations using electroanatomic mapping (EAM)-guided EMB and fluoroscopic-guided EMB during temporary mechanical circulatory support have improved the utility of the procedure.

Summary

EMB remains an important diagnostic test whose results need to be interpreted in the context of (1) clinical pre-test probability, (2) timing of sampling, (3) quality of sampling (4) site of sampling, (5) histologic type of myocarditis, and (6) analytic methods that are applied. Herein we will review these caveats as well as perspectives and innovations related to the use of this diagnostic tool.

Is This the Prime Time for Transradial Access Left Ventricular Endomyocardial Biopsy?

Left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is an essential tool in the management of myocarditis and is conventionally performed via transfemoral access (TFA). Transradial access EMB (TRA-EMB) is a novel alternative and the authors sought to determine its safety and feasibility by conducting a systematic review of the literature. Medline was searched in 2020, and cohort demographics, procedural details and complications were extracted from selected studies. Four observational studies with a combined total of 496 procedures were included. TRA-EMB was most frequently performed with a sheathless MP1 guide catheter via the right radial artery. The most common complication was pericardial effusion (up to 11% in one study), but pericardial drainage for tamponade was rare (one reported case). Death and mitral valve damage have not been reported. TRA-EMB was successful in obtaining samples in 99% of reported procedures. The authors concluded that TRA-EMB is a safe and feasible alternative to TFA-EMB and the most common complication is uncomplicated pericardial effusion.

Safety of transradial and transfemoral left ventricular compared with transfemoral right ventricular endomyocardial biopsy

AIMS

With the present study, we sought to determine the safety of three different endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) access routes in 514 patients admitted for diagnostic workup of heart failure of unknown aetiology.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this retrospective monocentric cohort study, we analysed 514 consecutive patients with heart failure without evidence of significant coronary artery disease or valvular disease undergoing EMB between November 2013 and December 2018, stratified in three access route groups: transradial arterial left ventricular (LV-)EMB (323 patients), transfemoral LV-EMB (138 patients), and transfemoral right ventricular (RV-)EMB (53 patients). Patients undergoing selective transradial LV-EMB were older compared with patients undergoing selective transfemoral LV-EMB or RV-EMB [transradial LV-EMB: 56.0 (45.0/64.0) vs. transfemoral LV-EMB: 53 (42.5/64.5), P = 0.455; transradial LV-EMB: 56 (45.0/64.0) vs. RV-EMB: 53 (42.5/64), P = 0.695] and presented more often in New York Heart Association-functional class III and IV. A total of eight major complications including permanent atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation, pericardial tamponade necessitating pericardiocentesis, stroke and transient cerebral ischaemic attack as well as severe valvular damage, vascular access site complications, and ventricular fibrillation were documented with no significant differences between the groups (8/514, 1.5%). Minor complications such as transient chest pain, non-sustained electrocardiogram abnormalities, and transient atrioventricular block were rare and equally distributed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Transradial LV-EMB is a safe procedure for experienced radial operators and non-inferior compared with transfemoral LV-EMB and RV-EMB. An accurate peri-procedural and post-procedural monitoring and follow-up care should be recommended for all patients undergoing this procedure in order to identify potential complications.