Case 13-2018: A 53-Year-Old Man with Cardiomyopathy and Recurrent Ventricular Tachycardia

Phenotyping of giant cell myocarditis versus cardiac sarcoidosis using cardiovascular magnetic resonance

BACKGROUND

Giant cell myocarditis (GCM) and cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) are rare inflammatory diseases of the myocardium with poor prognosis. Little is known about the cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) appearance of GCM and the methods ability to distinguish the two rare entities from one another.

METHODS

We assessed a total of 40 patients with endomyocardial biopsy-proven GCM (n = 14) and CS (n = 26) concerning their clinical and CMR appearance in a blinded manner.

RESULTS

Patients with GCM and CS were of similar median age (55 vs 56 years), and a male predominance was observed in both groups. In GCM, median levels of troponin T (313 vs 31 ng/L, p < 0.001), and natriuretic peptides (6560 vs 676 pg/mL, p < 0.001) were higher than in CS, and the clinical outcome worse (p = 0.04). On CMR imaging, the observed alterations of left and right ventricular (LV/RV) dimensions and function were similar. GCM showed multifocal LV late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) with a similar longitudinal, circumferential, and radial distribution as in CS, including suggested signature imaging biomarkers of CS like the "hook sign" (71% vs 77%, p = 0.702). The median LV LGE enhanced volume was 17% and 22% in GCM and CS (p = 0.150), respectively. The number of RV segments with pathologically increased T2 signal and/or LGE were most extensive in GCM.

CONCLUSIONS

The CMR appearance of both GCM and CS is highly similar, making the differentiation between the two rare entities solely based on CMR challenging. This stands in contrast to the clinical appearance, which seems to be more severe in GCM.

Cardiac magnetic resonance in giant cell myocarditis: a matched comparison with cardiac sarcoidosis

AIMS

Giant cell myocarditis (GCM) is an inflammatory cardiomyopathy akin to cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). We decided to study the findings of GCM on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and to compare GCM with CS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

CMR studies of 18 GCM patients were analyzed and compared with 18 CS controls matched for age, sex, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction and presenting cardiac manifestations. The analysts were blinded to clinical data. On admission, the duration of symptoms (median) was 0.2 months in GCM vs. 2.4 months in CS (P = 0.002), cardiac troponin T was elevated (>50 ng/L) in 16/17 patients with GCM and in 2/16 with CS (P < 0.001), their respective median plasma B-type natriuretic propeptides measuring 4488 ng/L and 1223 ng/L (P = 0.011). On CMR imaging, LV diastolic volume was smaller in GCM (177 ± 32 mL vs. 211 ± 58 mL, P = 0.014) without other volumetric or wall thickness measurements differing between the groups. Every GCM patient had multifocal late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in a distribution indistinguishable from CS both longitudinally, circumferentially, and radially across the LV segments. LGE mass averaged 17.4 ± 6.3% of LV mass in GCM vs 25.0 ± 13.4% in CS (P = 0.037). Involvement of insertion points extending across the septum into the right ventricular wall, the "hook sign" of CS, was present in 53% of GCM and 50% of CS.

CONCLUSION

In GCM, CMR findings are qualitatively indistinguishable from CS despite myocardial inflammation being clinically more acute and injurious. When matched for LV dysfunction and presenting features, LV size and LGE mass are smaller in GCM.

Clinical Identification and Characteristic Analysis of Giant Cell Myocarditis in 12 Cases

Aims: Giant cell myocarditis (GCM) is a rare, rapidly progressing cardiomyopathy with high mortality, if not diagnosed and treated in time. We analyzed the progression and clinical manifestations of patients with definitive diagnosis of GCM.

Methods and Result: We enrolled 12 patients diagnosed with GCM in the explanted heart during heart transplantation (HTx) or by endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) and collected information on demographic data, cardiac structure and function, arrhythmias, preliminary diagnosis, and delay of the diagnosis. Seven cases were diagnosed from biopsy samples during HTx, and five cases were diagnosed through EMB. Before the diagnosis of GCM based on pathological analysis, these patients had been incorrectly diagnosed with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (n = 5), dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 2), ventricular tachycardia (n = 2), viral myocarditis (n = 1), cardiac amyloidosis (n = 1), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 1) based on clues such as symptoms, arrhythmia, and cardiac imaging. Patients diagnosed with GCM through EMB had a shorter symptom-onset-to-diagnosis time (6.6 ± 2.7 months) and milder heart damage (left ventricular ejection fraction, 47.2 ± 8.8%) than those diagnosed during HTx (11.0 ± 3.3 months, P = 0.034; 31.4 ± 10.9%, P = 0.024).

Conclusion: GCM is easily misdiagnosed as other types of myocarditis and cardiomyopathy. Pathological examination of the myocardium is the most reliable diagnostic method for GCM. Endocardial biopsy can identify patients with GCM at an earlier stage.