Management of ventricular tachycardia in patients with cardiac sarcoidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarcoidosis is a multisystem granulomatous disease with 2 different phases (inflammation and scar). In the current era of targeted use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and modern heart failure therapy, recent data indicate the prognosis of cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is much improved, and hence more patients are presenting with recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT). This review highlights our current understanding of the pathophysiology and management of ventricular arrhythmias in CS with the major focus on indications, techniques, and outcomes of ablation. It is likely macroreentry phenomena around areas of fibrosis is the most frequent mechanism of ventricular arrhythmia in CS. It is also possible that inflammation may play a role in initiating reentry with ventricular ectopy in CS patients, or by slowing conduction in diseased tissue. The best available data would suggest annual rates of VT of perhaps 1%-2% and 10%-15% in patients with initially clinically silent and clinically manifest disease, respectively. Current guidelines recommend a stepwise approach to VT management. The first suggested step is treatment with immunosuppression if there is evidence of active inflammation. Antiarrhythmic medications are often started at the same time, with catheter ablation considered if VT cannot be controlled. Activation and entrainment mapping and ablation are favored in the setting of hemodynamically tolerated VT. Substrate ablation targets areas of abnormal electrogram and favorable pace mapping using linear and/or cluster lesion sets with the goal of abolishing critical isthmuses and/or blocking VT exit sites. Epicardial mapping ablation is required in 20%-35% of cases. In general, more morphologies of VT are induced (often 3-4) and subsequent outcomes (recurrence rates 40%-50%) are less favorable than in other forms of nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The prognosis of CS is much improved and, as a result, more patients are developing VT during follow-up. Likely principally related to the complex disease substrate, VT ablation is technically challenging, with moderate outcomes, and much remains to be learned.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".