Virus serology in patients with suspected myocarditis: utility or futility?
Why the study?
Does virus serology accurately diagnose myocardial viral infection compared to endomyocardial biopsy in patients with suspected myocarditis?
Population
124 patients with clinically suspected myocarditis, mean age 40 ± 15 years.
Comparison
Virus serology vs Endomyocardial biopsy with viral genome…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Serology's low sensitivity versus EMB cautions against routine use; leaves open its adjunctive value pending prospective validation.
Structured PICO
Does virus serology accurately diagnose myocardial viral infection compared to endomyocardial biopsy in patients with suspected myocarditis?
P
Population
124 patients with clinically suspected myocarditis, mean age 40 ± 15 years.
I
Intervention
Virus serology (IgM or IgA in initial sample or IgG seroconversion in follow-up sample)
C
Comparator
Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) with viral genome detection by polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry
O
Outcome
Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) of virus serology compared to EMBsurrogate
Virus serology has no diagnostic relevance for myocardial infection in suspected myocarditis, reinforcing endomyocardial biopsy as the gold standard.
Cite This Study
Mahfoud et al. (2011) studied this question.