ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Eosinophilic myocarditis: diagnostic pitfalls and therapeutic challenges. A Case Series.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Eosinophilic myocarditis (EM) is a rare and potentially life-threatening inflammatory heart disease. Diagnosis is frequently delayed because clinical presentations are heterogeneous, early cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) lacks a pathognomonic pattern, and endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) is often performed late or after glucocorticoid exposure. A further pitfall is assuming that EM can be excluded in the absence of peripheral eosinophilia or overt extracardiac disease. Delayed recognition may result in irreversible myocardial injury, endomyocardial fibrosis and adverse clinical outcomes. Case summary: We report four cases of EM managed at our institution, each exemplifying a distinct diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The first case was initially misclassified as apical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy on transthoracic echocardiography and CMR due to apical pseudo-hypertrophy, later evolving into endomyocardial fibrosis with severe mitral regurgitation requiring surgical annuloplasty, without clinical evidence of systemic disease. The second case was consistent with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-negative EGPA complicated by myocarditis; prolonged glucocorticoid exposure likely attenuated peripheral eosinophilia and masked eosinophils on EMB. The third case was initially classified as lymphocytic myocarditis based on an EMB performed under glucocorticoids, with eosinophilic infiltration and Loeffler endocarditis uncovered on repeat biopsy after steroid tapering. The fourth case presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction secondary to coronary embolism in the setting of idiopathic hypereosinophilia. Across cases, we detail the diagnostic workup, emphasizing the complementary role of multimodality imaging and EMB, and outline therapeutic strategies, combining conventional immunosuppression with emerging targeted therapies against the interleukin-5 pathway. Conclusions: EM may present as an isolated, organ-specific cardiac disease in the absence of extracardiac involvement or peripheral eosinophilia, with a time-dependent prognosis. Diagnostic pitfalls frequently arise from reliance on non-invasive imaging alone and from smoldering disease course, particularly when chronic glucocorticoid therapy masks both clinical and histological features. Clinicians should maintain a high level of suspicion for EM diagnosis, even in absence of peripheral hypereosinophilia and if endomyocardial biopsy is obtained after acute or chronic steroid therapy, and consider possible thromboembolic complications, such as coronary artery embolization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.