Key result
Among 274 cases of eosinophilic myocarditis, 82.4% were diagnosed by endomyocardial biopsy and 17.6% by cardiac MRI, with CMR-diagnosed patients exhibiting a better risk profile.
Why the study?
In clinical practice, patients with eosinophilic myocarditis may forgo the gold standard endomyocardial biopsy, highlighting the need to summarise current diagnostic and treatment approaches with emphasis on alternative diagnostic methods.
Population
274 cases from 239 articles including 8 observational studies
Design
Systematic review
Authors
Loading...
EMB remains the diagnostic mainstay for eosinophilic myocarditis; leaves optimal corticosteroid dosing open for prospective trials.
Systematic Review (n=274)
Absolute Event Rate: 82.4% vs 17.6%
Endomyocardial biopsy remains the diagnostic mainstay for eosinophilic myocarditis, while cardiac MRI serves as a potentially helpful screening tool.
Techasatian et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review in Eosinophilic myocarditis (n=274). Endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) vs. Cardiac MRI (CMR) was evaluated on Method of diagnosis. Among 274 cases of eosinophilic myocarditis, 82.4% were diagnosed by endomyocardial biopsy and 17.6% by cardiac MRI, with CMR-diagnosed patients exhibiting a better risk profile.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: