Search

Purpose: Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) patients are at increased risk for sudden death. Isolated CS is rare and can be difficult to diagnose., Methods: In this multicenter retrospective review, patients with CS and an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) were identified., Results: Of 235 patients with CS and ICD, 13 (5.5 %) had isolated CS, including 7 (3.0 %) with definite isolated CS (biopsy or necropsy-proven) and 6 (2.6 %) with suspected isolated CS based on a constellation of clinical, ECG, and imaging findings. Among 13 patients with isolated CS, 10 (76.9 %) were male, mean age was 53.8 ± 7.6 years, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 38.3 ± 16.5. Diagnosis was made by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) (n = 2), biopsy (n = 3), CMR and biopsy (n = 2), CMR and positron emission tomography (PET) (n = 2), PET (n = 1), late enhanced cardiac CT (n = 1), pathology at heart transplant (n = 1), and autopsy (n = 1). Eight of 13 (61.5 %) patients with isolated CS had a secondary prevention indication (VT in 6 and VF in 2) vs. 80 of 222 (36.0 %) with sarcoidosis in other organs (p = 0.04). Over a mean of 4.2 years, 9 of 13 (69.2 %) patients with isolated CS received appropriate ICD therapy, including anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and/or shock, compared with 75 of 222 (33.8 %) patients with cardiac and extracardiac sarcoidosis (p = 0.0150). Six of 7 (85.7 %) patients with definite isolated CS received appropriate ICD intervention, compared with 78 of 228 patients (34.2 %) without definite isolated CS (p = 0.0192.), Conclusions: In this retrospective study, patients with isolated CS had very high rates of appropriate ICD therapy. Prospective, long-term follow-up of consecutive patients with isolated CS is needed to determine the true natural history and rates of ventricular arrhythmias in this rare and difficult-to-diagnose disease.

Aims: Implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation is a class IIA recommendation for patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). However, little is known about the efficacy and safety of ICDs in this population. The goal of this multicentre retrospective data review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICDs in patients with CS., Methods and Results: Electrophysiologists at academic medical centres were asked to identify consecutive patients with CS and an ICD. Clinical information, ICD therapy history, and device complications were collected for each patient. Data were collected on 235 patients from 13 institutions, 64.7% male with mean age 55.6 ± 11.1. Over a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 4.0 years, 85 of 234 (36.2%) patients received an appropriate ICD therapy (shocks and/or anti-tachycardia pacing) and 67 of 226 (29.7%) received an appropriate shock. Fifty-seven of 235 patients (24.3%) received a total of 222 inappropriate shocks. Forty-six adverse events occurred in 41 of 235 patients (17.4%). Patients who received appropriate ICD therapies were more likely to be male (73.8 vs. 59.6%, P = 0.0330), have a history of syncope (40.5 vs. 22.5%, P = 0.0044), lower left ventricular ejection fraction (38.1 ± 15.2 vs. 48.8 ± 14.7%, P ≤ 0.0001), ventricular pacing on baseline electrocardiogram (16.1 vs. 2.1%, P = 0.0002), and a secondary prevention indication (60.7 vs. 24.5%, P < 0.0001) compared with those who did not receive appropriate ICD therapies., Conclusion: Patients with CS and ICDs are at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. This population also has high rates of inappropriate shocks and device complications.