Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Cardiac sarcoidosis masquerading as ventricular tachycardia storm: a challenging diagnosis
  1. William Aitken,
  2. Darren Tsang,
  3. Sandra Chaparro and
  4. Devika Kir
  1. Department of Cardiology, Jackson Memorial Hospital/University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Devika Kir; devika.kir{at}


A 67-year-old African-American woman with remote history of complete heart block (s/p pacemaker 3 years ago) and recent onset of ventricular tachycardia (VT) (s/p VT ablation and cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator upgrade 3 months ago) presented to the hospital with VT storm. Workup showed newly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction with global hypokinesis (20%) and restrictive physiology. Positive technetium pyrophosphate scan was suspicious for TTR amyloid while serological workup revealed a monoclonal gammopathy. Cardiac MRI was contraindicated given remote brain aneurysm clip. Given clinical suspicion for cardiac sarcoidosis and divergent non-invasive workup, endomyocardial biopsy was performed which showed non-necrotising granulomas consistent with cardiac sarcoidosis. She was started on steroids with clinical improvement. Cardiac sarcoidosis is a challenging clinical diagnosis, particularly in patients without extracardiac manifestations. This case highlights the importance of a detailed and thorough workup of non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and being cognizant of infiltrative disease as it can change patient management and outcomes.

  • cardiovascular medicine
  • arrhythmias
  • heart failure
  • pacing and electrophysiology

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Twitter @williamaitken, @DevikaKir

  • Contributors All authors contributed significantly to this case report. All the authors, in their respective roles, were involved in this patient’s clinical care. WA, SC and DK were involved in critical planning of the case report. WA, DT and DK were involved in manuscript writing.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.