ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2021
Case report of isolated cardiac sarcoidosis presenting as hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy-a clinical picture printed on lenticular paper.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic challenges in isolated cardiac sarcoidosis.ESC heart failure · 2026Review
- Rapid regression of marked left ventricular septal hypertrophy following immunosuppressive therapy in cardiac sarcoidosis.Journal of cardiology cases · 2025Article
- Cardiac Sarcoidosis and Inherited Cardiomyopathies: Clinical Masquerade or Overlap?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Diagnosis and Treatment of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024Review
- Pathophysiological Gaps, Diagnostic Challenges, and Uncertainties in Cardiac Sarcoidosis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is an inflammatory granulomatous process of the myocardium that can be asymptomatic or have several different clinical phenotypes. One of its rarely described presentations consists of hypertrophy of the septal myocardium, similar to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Isolated cardiac sarcoidosis that haemodynamically mimics hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) has been rarely described in the literature. CASE SUMMARY: A 64-year-old Caucasian female previously diagnosed with non-critical aortic stenosis presented with pre-syncope, and echocardiography showed significant obstruction based on left ventricular outflow tract gradients, confirmed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), concerning for a phenocopy of HCM. Septal myectomy was performed and pathology specimen revealed non-caseating granulomata consistent with cardiac sarcoidosis. She was started on oral corticosteroids and initial cardiac fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) done after 1 month of treatment was negative. Repeat FDG-PET 15 months later, in the setting of haemodynamic decompensation, demonstrated diffuse FDG uptake in the myocardium without extra-cardiac involvement. DISCUSSION: Our case brings together two entities: isolated cardiac sarcoidosis and its presentation mimicking HOCM, which has been very rarely described in the literature. And it also shows the scenario of surgical pathology diagnosis of sarcoidosis that was not suspected by initial CMR or FDG-PET, despite adequate preparation, only appearing on repeat FDG-PET done 15 months later. Isolated cardiac sarcoidosis should remain a differential diagnosis for any non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy without a clear cause, despite imaging evidence of HCM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.