Stiermaier Thomas, Föhrenbach Felix, Klingel Karin, Kandolf Reinhard, Boudriot Enno, Sandri Marcus, Linke Axel, Rommel Karl-Philipp, Desch Steffen, Schuler Gerhard, Thiele Holger, Lurz Philipp
University Heart Center Luebeck, Medical Clinic II (Cardiology/Angiology/Intensive Care Medicine), Luebeck, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), partner site Hamburg/Kiel/Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
University of Leipzig-Heart Center, Department of Internal Medicine-Cardiology, Leipzig, Germany.
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Mar 1;230:364-370. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.12.103. Epub 2016 Dec 21.
Previous retrospective analyses have suggested that biventricular (BV) endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is superior compared to selective left ventricular (LV) or right ventricular (RV) EMB. This study prospectively assessed the feasibility, safety and diagnostic performance of implementing a routine BV-EMB approach in patients with suspected myocarditis.
Consecutive patients with clinically suspected myocarditis underwent EMB (n=136). Myocarditis was defined as ≥14 infiltrating leukocytes/mm in addition to enhanced human leukocyte antigen class II expression in professional antigen-presenting immune cells. The presence of viral genomes was assessed by nested (reverse transcriptase-) polymerase chain reaction.
BV-EMB was attempted in 132 patients (LV thrombus, n=3; complication during RV-EMB, n=1) and resulted in sufficient samples from both ventricles in 127 patients (96.2%). One major complication (pericardial tamponade requiring surgical revision) was observed during the 136 RV-EMB (0.7%). No severe complications occurred during the 132 LV procedures. Of the 127 patients with BV-EMB, myocarditis was diagnosed in 89 patients (70.1%). While 67 patients (75.3%) fulfilled the diagnostic criteria in both ventricles, the diagnosis of myocarditis was based on the results of LV-EMB only in 16 patients (18%) and of RV-EMB only in 6 patients (6.7%). Viral genomes were found in 45 of the 127 patients (35.4%) with evidence of virus genome only in the left ventricle in 10 patients (22.2%) and only in the right ventricle in 3 patients (6.7%).
Implementing a routine BV-EMB approach is feasible and safe. In patients with suspected myocarditis, BV-EMB yields superior diagnostic performance compared to selective RV- or LV-EMB.
既往回顾性分析提示,双心室(BV)心内膜心肌活检(EMB)相较于选择性左心室(LV)或右心室(RV)EMB更具优势。本研究前瞻性评估了在疑似心肌炎患者中实施常规BV-EMB方法的可行性、安全性及诊断性能。
连续纳入临床疑似心肌炎的患者接受EMB(n = 136)。心肌炎的定义为除专业抗原呈递免疫细胞中人类白细胞抗原II类表达增强外,每平方毫米有≥14个浸润白细胞。通过巢式(逆转录-)聚合酶链反应评估病毒基因组的存在情况。
132例患者尝试进行BV-EMB(LV血栓形成3例;RV-EMB期间出现并发症1例),127例患者(96.2%)获得了来自两个心室的足够样本。136例RV-EMB中有1例出现严重并发症(心包填塞需手术修复,0.7%)。132例LV操作期间未发生严重并发症。127例接受BV-EMB的患者中,89例(70.1%)被诊断为心肌炎。67例患者(75.3%)两个心室均符合诊断标准,仅16例患者(18%)心肌炎诊断基于LV-EMB结果,仅6例患者(6.7%)基于RV-EMB结果。127例患者中有45例(35.4%)发现病毒基因组,其中仅10例患者(22.2%)病毒基因组仅存在于左心室,仅3例患者(6.7%)仅存在于右心室。
实施常规BV-EMB方法是可行且安全的。在疑似心肌炎患者中,与选择性RV-或LV-EMB相比,BV-EMB具有更优的诊断性能。