ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2026
Endomyocardial biopsy in patients with myocarditis-still justified in the CMR era? A single-centre experience.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative review of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related cardiotoxicity in lung cancer: mechanisms, risk stratification, and clinical management.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Case Report: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis in an esophageal cancer patient with myasthenia gravis following combined radiotherapy and immunotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the past decades, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) was established as a non-invasive tool supporting the diagnosis of myocarditis and there is often reluctance in performing EMB due to potentially severe complications. We sought to identify patient subgroups that could still benefit from EMB in the CMR era.
methodsData of patients presenting with myocarditis between 01/2016 and 06/2023 were analysed according to patient risks. Prespecified risk factors were (i) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 30%; (ii) severe arrhythmias; or (iii) pre-existing autoimmune disease. Furthermore, the subgroup of recurrent myocarditis cases was analysed separately.
resultsA total of 137 patients (35.5 ± 14.8 years, 80.3% male) were included. 26/137 patients had a documented LVEF ≤ 30%, 13/137 a LVEF > 30% with at least one other risk factor and 98/137 a LVEF > 30% without risk factors. EMB was performed in 21/26 patients with LVEF ≤ 30% (80.8%), in 7/13 patients with LVEF > 30% and risk factors (53.8%) and in 16/98 (16%) patients without risk factors. EMB led to the initiation of immunosuppressive therapy in 11/28 patients with risk factors (39.3%) and in none of the patients without risk factors (0/16, 0%, p = 0.003). With respect to the subgroup of patients presenting with recurrent myocarditis (n = 10), no specific therapy was initiated.
conclusionsDue to a high therapeutic yield for initiation of immunosuppressive therapy in non-infectious myocarditis, performing EMB should be considered in all high-risk patients. In patients without clinical risk factors including cases of recurrent or relapsing myocarditis no specific therapy was initiated.
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.