Open AccessIdiopathic giant cell myocarditis or cardiac sarcoidosis? A retrospective audit of a nationwide case series
Author(s) -
Ekström Kaj,
RäisänenSokolowski Anne,
Lehtonen Jukka,
Nordenswan HannaKaisa,
Mäyränpää Mikko I.,
Kupari Markku
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
esc heart failure
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.787
H-Index - 25
ISSN - 2055-5822
DOI - 10.1002/ehf2.12725
Subject(s) - medicine , myocarditis , sarcoidosis , heart failure , gcm transcription factors , confusion , retrospective cohort study , cardiology , pathology , psychology , ecology , climate change , general circulation model , psychoanalysis , biology
Aims Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) and giant cell myocarditis (GCM) are inflammatory cardiomyopathies sharing histopathological and clinical features. Their differentiation is difficult and susceptible of confusion and apparent mistakes. The possibility that they represent different phenotypes of a single disease has been debated. Methods and results We made a retrospective audit of 73 cases of GCM diagnosed in Finland since the late 1980s. All available histological material was reanalyzed as were other examinations pertinent to the distinction between GCM and CS. Finding granulomas in or outside the heart was considered diagnostic of CS and exclusive of GCM. Altogether 45 of the 73 cases of GCM (62%) were reclassified as CS. In all except one case, this was based on finding sarcoid granulomas that either had been originally missed ( n = 29) or misinterpreted ( n = 11) or were found in additional posttransplant myocardial specimens ( n = 3) or samples of extracardiac tissue ( n = 1) accrued over the disease course. Supporting the reclassification, patients relocated to the CS group had less heart failure at presentation (prevalence 20% vs. 46%, P = 0.017) and better 1 year transplant‐free survival (82% vs. 45%, P = 0.011) than patients considered to represent true GCM. Conclusions Recognizing granulomas in or outside the heart remains a challenge for the pathologist. Given that CS and GCM are considered distinct diseases and granulomas exclusive of GCM, many cases of GCM, if thoroughly scrutinized, may need reclassification as CS. However, whether CS and GCM are truly different entities or parts of a one‐disease continuum has not yet been conclusively settled.