Diagnostic Approach to Cardiac Sarcoidosis
- Journal
- Circulation (Q1)
- Published
- 20 July 2026
- Study design
- Narrative review / expert opinion
- Evidence level
- Level 5, Expert Opinion (CEBM 5)
- Authors
- Jukka Lehtonen, David H Birnie
- PMID
- 42475441
- DOI
- 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.126.079275
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Histology (top studies of the week, 26 July 2026).
Abstract
Cardiac sarcoidosis is a granulomatous myocarditis, classified by some authorities as an infiltrative cardiomyopathy and by others as an inflammatory cardiomyopathy, that carries an elevated risk of life-threatening arrhythmias, heart failure, and sudden cardiac death. Despite its clinical importance, diagnosis remains challenging. No single modality achieves both high sensitivity and specificity, and the 4 major consensus documents-comprising expert consensus statements, clinical practice guidelines, and a scientific statement-differ in diagnostic thresholds and can yield discordant diagnoses when applied to the same patient. Genetic cardiomyopathies account for a meaningful fraction of patients diagnosed with presumed isolated cardiac sarcoidosis. This primer organizes the diagnostic approach around 2 clinical contexts: de novo cardiac presentation with unexplained atrioventricular block, ventricular arrhythmia, or heart failure without previous sarcoidosis; and cardiac screening in patients with established extracardiac sarcoidosis. In nonurgent presentations, concordant cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography abnormalities are accepted as sufficient for diagnosis; endomyocardial biopsy is indicated when imaging is inconclusive or giant cell myocarditis must be excluded. Advanced imaging should precede permanent device implantation in all de novo presentations. Isolated cardiac sarcoidosis represents the most diagnostically challenging phenotype. A 5-step pathway is presented that integrates advanced imaging, tissue acquisition when it would change management, and genetic evaluation. Expert opinion on histologic confirmation in nonurgent presentations is divided, and no diagnostic approach has been prospectively validated.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.