The Cardiology-Immunology Interface: Cardiac Manifestations of Rheumatic Diseases

Managing the complex intersection of autoimmune disease and the heart

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

The intersection of cardiology and immunology represents one of the most challenging domains in internal medicine. Cardiac involvement in rheumatic diseases ranges from subclinical abnormalities to life-threatening complications, often requiring a nuanced understanding of both disciplines. This review explores the spectrum of cardiac manifestations in systemic autoimmune conditions, focusing on pericardial disease in connective tissue disorders, vasculitic involvement of coronary vessels, granulomatous cardiac disease, and the emerging challenge of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis. We provide practical diagnostic and management pearls for the practicing internist navigating these complex clinical scenarios.

Introduction

Cardiovascular involvement in rheumatic diseases is more common than traditionally recognized, with autopsy studies revealing cardiac abnormalities in up to 50% of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and 30% of those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), despite many being clinically silent during life.[1,2] The challenge for the modern internist lies not merely in recognizing these manifestations but in distinguishing inflammatory processes requiring immunosuppression from complications necessitating alternative interventions. As novel immunotherapies expand the landscape of cancer treatment, we now confront an entirely new category of immune-mediated cardiac injury that demands prompt recognition and aggressive management.

Pericardial Disease in SLE and Rheumatoid Arthritis: Differentiating Benign Effusions from Constrictive Pericarditis

Clinical Presentation and Prevalence

Pericardial involvement represents the most frequent cardiac manifestation of both SLE and RA. In SLE, pericarditis occurs in 25-50% of patients during their disease course, while clinically apparent pericarditis affects 6-10% of RA patients, though echocardiographic studies suggest subclinical effusions in up to 50%.[3,4]

Pearl #1: The absence of chest pain does not exclude pericarditis in rheumatic diseases. Many patients present with dyspnea alone or are entirely asymptomatic, with pericardial disease discovered incidentally on imaging.

SLE-Associated Pericardial Disease

Lupus pericarditis typically manifests as acute fibrinous pericarditis with effusion. The effusion is usually small to moderate, exudative, and characterized by elevated protein content, low glucose, and variable leukocytosis. Unlike viral or idiopathic pericarditis, lupus pericarditis often occurs in the context of active systemic disease with elevated inflammatory markers, hypocomplementemia, and rising anti-dsDNA antibodies.[5]

Diagnostic Hack: When evaluating pericardial effusion in known SLE, check complement levels (C3, C4) and anti-dsDNA antibodies. If these markers suggest active lupus, empiric corticosteroid therapy is often both diagnostic and therapeutic, with clinical improvement expected within 48-72 hours.

The critical distinction lies in identifying patients progressing toward constrictive physiology. Chronic or recurrent lupus pericarditis can lead to constrictive pericarditis, though this remains uncommon (<2% of lupus patients).[6] Red flags include:

Progressive dyspnea despite treatment of acute inflammation
Development of peripheral edema and ascites
Persistently elevated jugular venous pressure with prominent y-descent
Pericardial thickening >4mm on CT or cardiac MRI

Rheumatoid Pericardial Disease

RA-associated pericarditis differs subtly from its lupus counterpart. It tends to occur later in disease course, often in patients with established erosive, seropositive RA and extra-articular manifestations. The effusion may have characteristic features including low glucose (<30 mg/dL), elevated LDH, and low complement levels—a biochemical profile that can mimic septic or malignant effusions.[7]

Oyster #1: RA pericardial effusions with very low glucose and high LDH are not infected or malignant—they reflect the intense local inflammatory process. Avoid unnecessary pericardiocentesis if the clinical picture fits RA activity.

Constrictive pericarditis is more common in RA than SLE, particularly in patients with longstanding, inadequately controlled disease. The granulomatous nature of rheumatoid inflammation predisposes to fibrosis. Constrictive physiology should be suspected when:

Symptoms of right heart failure emerge in a patient with chronic pericardial disease
Echocardiography demonstrates respiratory variation in mitral inflow velocities (>25%) and preserved ejection fraction
Cardiac catheterization reveals equalization of diastolic pressures and the characteristic "square root sign"

Pearl #2: Cardiac MRI with late gadolinium enhancement can distinguish active inflammatory pericarditis (enhancement present) from chronic constriction (thickened pericardium without enhancement), guiding whether intensified immunosuppression or pericardiectomy is appropriate.[8]

Management Approach

For acute pericarditis in either SLE or RA:

First-line: Corticosteroids (prednisone 0.5-1 mg/kg/day) rather than NSAIDs, given the underlying immune pathology
Consider colchicine 0.6 mg twice daily as adjunctive therapy to reduce recurrence
For recurrent or refractory cases, escalate to disease-modifying agents (azathioprine, mycophenolate, or methotrexate for RA)
Reserve biologics (anakinra, tocilizumab) for truly refractory cases[9]

For constrictive pericarditis:

Medical therapy is typically ineffective once constriction is established
Pericardiectomy becomes necessary, though outcomes are less favorable in autoimmune etiology compared to idiopathic or post-infectious constriction
Optimize immunosuppression pre-operatively to minimize surgical risk

The Vasculitides and the Vessels of the Heart: How Takayasu's and Giant Cell Arteritis Can Cause Angina and Heart Failure

Large Vessel Vasculitis and Cardiac Involvement

Takayasu arteritis (TAK) and giant cell arteritis (GCA) represent the primary large vessel vasculitides affecting the aorta and its major branches. Cardiac complications arise through multiple mechanisms: coronary ostial stenosis, aortic regurgitation from root involvement, and accelerated atherosclerosis from chronic inflammation.

Takayasu Arteritis

TAK predominantly affects women under 40 years old, with cardiac involvement in 30-60% of patients.[10] The disease process causes granulomatous inflammation leading to arterial wall thickening, stenosis, or aneurysm formation.

Cardiac manifestations include:

Coronary artery involvement (10-15%): Ostial stenosis from aortic inflammation extending into coronary origins. Patients present with typical angina, but the mechanism differs from atherosclerotic disease.
Aortic regurgitation (15-20%): Results from aortic root dilatation and annular deformation.
Heart failure: Can result from uncontrolled hypertension (renovascular disease), aortic regurgitation, or direct myocardial dysfunction from chronic inflammation.

Pearl #3: Young women presenting with angina, especially with absent or diminished peripheral pulses and elevated inflammatory markers, should trigger evaluation for TAK. Don't assume atherosclerotic disease based on symptoms alone.

Diagnostic Approach:

CTA or MRA of the aorta and great vessels demonstrates wall thickening, stenosis, and enhancement during active inflammation
PET-CT with FDG uptake in vessel walls indicates active inflammation and helps monitor treatment response[11]
Coronary angiography reveals characteristic smooth ostial stenosis rather than irregular atherosclerotic plaques
Cardiac MRI may show myocardial edema or fibrosis

Management Hack: Revascularization (surgical bypass preferred over PCI) should be deferred until inflammation is controlled with immunosuppression. Attempting PCI during active disease risks acute vessel closure and poor long-term patency.[12]

Giant Cell Arteritis

GCA affects patients over 50, with cardiac complications in approximately 15% of cases.[13] The spectrum mirrors TAK but with some distinct features:

Coronary involvement: Less common than in TAK but can occur, particularly affecting proximal coronary segments
Aortic disease: Thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection represent serious late complications, even in treated patients
Myocardial infarction: May occur via coronary arteritis or accelerated atherosclerosis

Oyster #2: Patients with GCA have 2-3 times increased risk of aortic aneurysm and dissection, even years after achieving clinical remission. Baseline imaging of the thoracic aorta and periodic surveillance (every 2-3 years) is recommended.[14]

Treatment Principles for Cardiac Vasculitis

Induction therapy: High-dose corticosteroids (prednisone 1 mg/kg/day or pulse methylprednisolone for severe manifestations)
Steroid-sparing agents: Methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate initiated early to facilitate steroid taper
Biologic therapy: Tocilizumab (IL-6 inhibitor) has revolutionized GCA management and shows promise in TAK, particularly for refractory disease[15]
Monitoring: Serial inflammatory markers (ESR, CRP) and imaging to assess treatment response
Surgical intervention: Only after achieving disease control when feasible

Cardiac Sarcoid vs. Giant Cell Myocarditis: A Diagnostic Challenge with Critical Management Implications

The Clinical Dilemma

Both cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) and giant cell myocarditis (GCM) present as granulomatous inflammation of the myocardium, often with overlapping clinical presentations—heart block, ventricular arrhythmias, and acute heart failure in relatively young patients. Yet their prognoses and management strategies differ dramatically.

Cardiac Sarcoidosis

CS occurs in 5% of sarcoidosis patients clinically, though autopsy studies suggest up to 25% have subclinical cardiac involvement.[16] Conversely, approximately 40% of CS cases present without systemic sarcoidosis manifestations.

Clinical presentations:

Conduction abnormalities (especially high-grade AV block in young patients without ischemic disease)
Ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death
Heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction
Mimicry of myocardial infarction or dilated cardiomyopathy

Pearl #4: Unexplained AV block or ventricular tachycardia in a patient under 60, especially with basal septal thinning on echocardiography, should prompt evaluation for cardiac sarcoidosis.

Diagnostic workup:

Cardiac MRI: The cornerstone diagnostic tool. Classic findings include patchy late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) with predilection for basal and mid-ventricular segments, particularly the septal wall. The subepicardial or mid-wall pattern distinguishes it from ischemic scar.[17]
FDG-PET: Demonstrates active inflammation (FDG uptake) and can guide biopsy sites. The combination of MRI (scarring) and PET (inflammation) provides complementary information.
Endomyocardial biopsy: Diagnostic yield only 20-30% due to patchy involvement. Consider when non-invasive testing is equivocal.
Extracardiac evaluation: Chest CT, pulmonary function tests, ophthalmologic examination to identify systemic sarcoidosis

Giant Cell Myocarditis

GCM is rare but rapidly progressive, with median survival historically less than 6 months without transplantation.[18] It typically presents in previously healthy young to middle-aged adults with fulminant heart failure.

Distinguishing features:

More acute presentation (days to weeks vs. months to years in CS)
Severe biventricular dysfunction
Frequent need for mechanical circulatory support at presentation
Association with autoimmune diseases (inflammatory bowel disease, thyroiditis) in 20%
Characteristic ventricular tachycardia that is often refractory to antiarrhythmics

Pearl #5: In acute fulminant myocarditis with ventricular arrhythmias, the finding of eosinophilia should heighten suspicion for GCM (present in 60% of cases), though it's non-specific.[19]

Diagnostic Differentiation

Endomyocardial biopsy remains the gold standard for GCM diagnosis, revealing:

Diffuse inflammatory infiltrate with multinucleated giant cells
Absence of granulomas (unlike CS)
Extensive myocyte necrosis

Imaging patterns favoring GCM over CS:

More diffuse, confluent LGE pattern on cardiac MRI
Greater severity of ventricular dysfunction at presentation
Absence of typical basal septal involvement seen in CS

Oyster #3: Don't delay endomyocardial biopsy in suspected GCM. Unlike most myocarditis where biopsy is often deferred, establishing the GCM diagnosis is critical for initiating multi-drug immunosuppression and considering early transplant evaluation.

Management Divergence

Cardiac Sarcoidosis:

Corticosteroids (prednisone 0.5-0.75 mg/kg/day) for active inflammation
Steroid-sparing agents (methotrexate, azathioprine) for chronic management
ICD placement based on risk stratification (LVEF <35%, extensive scar on MRI, inducible VT)
Device-based management of conduction disease
Relatively good prognosis with treatment (5-year survival >90% in most series)[20]

Giant Cell Myocarditis:

Aggressive multi-drug immunosuppression: corticosteroids PLUS calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine preferred) PLUS additional agent (azathioprine or mycophenolate)[21]
Early mechanical circulatory support if needed
Urgent transplant evaluation—GCM has excellent post-transplant outcomes
Biologic agents (abatacept, alemtuzumab) for refractory cases
Transplant-free survival improved from <20% to 60-75% with modern protocols[22]

Management Hack: The combination of corticosteroids and cyclosporine is critical in GCM—corticosteroids alone are insufficient. Start both immediately when GCM is confirmed or highly suspected while awaiting biopsy results.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Myocarditis: Recognition, Workup, and Aggressive Management of This Life-Threatening Toxicity

The Emerging Challenge

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)—including anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies—have revolutionized oncology, but at the cost of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). ICI-associated myocarditis, while rare (0.5-2% of patients), carries mortality rates of 25-50%, making it the most lethal ICI toxicity.[23,24]

Clinical Recognition

Presentation timing: Median onset 30-40 days after ICI initiation, but can occur from first dose to months later. Risk highest with combination ICI therapy (PD-1 plus CTLA-4 inhibitors).

Clinical features:

Often subtle initially: fatigue, dyspnea, chest discomfort
Cardiac biomarkers elevated out of proportion to symptoms
Concomitant myositis (40%) or myasthenia gravis (10%)—check CPK and consider acetylcholine receptor antibodies
Arrhythmias (AV block, ventricular tachycardia) in severe cases
Rapidly progressive cardiogenic shock in fulminant presentations

Pearl #6: The troponin-to-BNP ratio: In ICI myocarditis, troponin elevation is typically marked (often >10x ULN) relative to BNP elevation, unlike in acute coronary syndrome where BNP rises proportionately to hemodynamic stress.[25]

Diagnostic Workup

Initial evaluation for any patient on ICIs with cardiac symptoms or elevated troponins:

Cardiac biomarkers: Troponin and BNP/NT-proBNP
ECG: May show conduction abnormalities, ST-segment changes, or arrhythmias
Echocardiography: Variable—may show preserved LVEF early despite severe myocarditis, or rapid decline to <40%
Cardiac MRI: Demonstrates myocardial edema (T2-weighted imaging) and patchy LGE; helps risk stratify
Rule out alternative diagnoses: Coronary angiography if ACS possible
Screen for concomitant irAEs: CPK (myositis), acetylcholine receptor antibodies (myasthenia), hepatic transaminases

Oyster #4: Normal ventricular function on echocardiography does NOT exclude severe ICI myocarditis. Elevated troponin in an ICI-treated patient demands full evaluation regardless of LVEF.

Endomyocardial biopsy: Consider in equivocal cases but don't delay treatment. Findings include lymphocytic infiltration, often with giant cells, and myocyte necrosis.

Management: Time is Myocardium

ICI myocarditis requires immediate, aggressive intervention. Outcome directly correlates with rapidity of treatment initiation.

Immediate actions:

Hold ICI immediately and indefinitely—rechallenge rarely feasible given mortality risk
Initiate high-dose corticosteroids: Methylprednisolone 1-2 mg/kg/day IV (or pulse dose 500-1000 mg daily for 3 days in fulminant cases)
Monitor continuously: Telemetry for arrhythmias and conduction disease
Low threshold for temporary pacing if any conduction abnormalities

Refractory or severe cases (LVEF <40%, hemodynamic instability, high-grade AV block, or no improvement within 24 hours of steroids):

Add abatacept (CTLA-4 Ig): Emerging as first-line adjunctive therapy, with case series showing improved outcomes[26]
Alternative agents: ATG (anti-thymocyte globulin), alemtuzumab (anti-CD52), infliximab (anti-TNF), or mycophenolate
IVIG: Consider empirically in myocarditis-myositis overlap syndromes
Mechanical circulatory support: Low threshold for advanced heart failure therapies
Avoid tachycardia-inducing inotropes when possible—may worsen arrhythmic risk

Pearl #7: Unlike other irAEs where steroids can be tapered over weeks, ICI myocarditis requires prolonged immunosuppression—typically 6-12 months minimum—with very gradual taper guided by biomarkers and imaging.[27]

Risk Stratification and Follow-up

High-risk features: LVEF <50%, troponin >10x ULN, conduction disease, QRS prolongation
Follow-up: Serial troponins, ECGs, and echocardiograms during hospitalization; cardiac MRI at 3-6 months
ICD consideration: For sustained ventricular arrhythmias or severely reduced LVEF after acute phase

Management Hack: Establish multidisciplinary care immediately—cardiology, oncology, and rheumatology/immunology. Early oncology involvement is critical for decisions about cancer management and potential alternative therapies.

Conclusion

The cardiology-immunology interface represents a challenging but increasingly relevant domain for the modern internist. Success requires maintaining high clinical suspicion for cardiac involvement in rheumatic diseases, understanding the mechanisms driving cardiac complications, and recognizing when aggressive immunosuppression versus procedural intervention is warranted. As the immunotherapy era expands, familiarity with ICI-associated myocarditis becomes essential. The principles outlined here—early recognition, thorough diagnostic evaluation combining imaging and biomarkers, and aggressive, tailored management—form the foundation for improving outcomes in these complex patients.

References

Doherty NE, Siegel RJ. Cardiovascular manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus. Am Heart J. 1985;110(6):1257-1265.
Turesson C, Jacobsson L, Bergström U. Extra-articular rheumatoid arthritis: prevalence and mortality. Rheumatology. 1999;38(7):668-674.
Miner JJ, Kim AH. Cardiac manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2014;40(1):51-60.
Voskuyl AE. The heart and cardiovascular manifestations in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2006;45(suppl 4):iv4-iv7.
Hahn BH, McMahon MA, Wilkinson A, et al. American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012;64(6):797-808.
Spodick DH. Pericardial diseases. In: Braunwald E, ed. Heart Disease. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1997:1478-1534.
Kitas GD, Banks MJ, Bacon PA. Cardiac involvement in rheumatoid disease. Clin Med. 2001;1(1):18-21.
Feng D, Glockner J, Kim K, et al. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging pericardial late gadolinium enhancement and elevated inflammatory markers can predict the reversibility of constrictive pericarditis. Circulation. 2011;124(17):1830-1837.
Klein AL, Abbara S, Agler DA, et al. American Society of Echocardiography clinical recommendations for multimodality cardiovascular imaging of patients with pericardial disease. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2013;26(9):965-1012.
Kerr GS, Hallahan CW, Giordano J, et al. Takayasu arteritis. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120(11):919-929.
Quinn KA, Grayson PC. The role of imaging in the diagnosis and management of large-vessel vasculitis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2019;31(1):16-24.
Lee GY, Jang SY, Ko SM, et al. Cardiovascular manifestations of Takayasu arteritis and their relationship to the disease activity: analysis of 204 Korean patients at a single center. Int J Cardiol. 2012;159(1):14-20.
Ly KH, Régent A, Molina E, Saadoun D. Cardiovascular manifestations of giant cell arteritis. Rev Med Interne. 2013;34(11):664-672.
Blockmans D, de Ceuninck L, Vanderschueren S, Knockaert D, Mortelmans L, Bobbaers H. Repetitive 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in giant cell arteritis: a prospective study of 35 patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(1):131-137.
Stone JH, Tuckwell K, Dimonaco S, et al. Trial of tocilizumab in giant-cell arteritis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(4):317-328.
Silverman KJ, Hutchins GM, Bulkley BH. Cardiac sarcoid: a clinicopathologic study of 84 unselected patients with systemic sarcoidosis. Circulation. 1978;58(6):1204-1211.
Patel MR, Cawley PJ, Heitner JF, et al. Detection of myocardial damage in patients with sarcoidosis. Circulation. 2009;120(20):1969-1977.
Cooper LT, Berry GJ, Shabetai R. Idiopathic giant-cell myocarditis—natural history and treatment. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(26):1860-1866.
Okura Y, Dec GW, Hare JM, et al. A clinical and histopathologic comparison of cardiac sarcoidosis and idiopathic giant cell myocarditis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41(2):322-329.
Kandolin R, Lehtonen J, Airaksinen J, et al. Cardiac sarcoidosis: epidemiology, characteristics, and outcome over 25 years in a nationwide study. Circulation. 2015;131(7):624-632.
Cooper LT, Hare JM, Tazelaar HD, et al. Usefulness of immunosuppression for giant cell myocarditis. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102(11):1535-1539.
Maleszewski JJ, Orellana VM, Hodge DO, et al. Long-term risk of recurrence, morbidity and mortality in giant cell myocarditis. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(12):1733-1738.
Johnson DB, Balko JM, Compton ML, et al. Fulminant myocarditis with combination immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1749-1755.
Mahmood SS, Fradley MG, Cohen JV, et al. Myocarditis in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(16):1755-1764.
Tay WT, Fang YH, Beh ST, et al. Biomarker-based approach in diagnosing immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis. Cardiovasc Res. 2021;117(14):2695-2703.
Salem JE, Manouchehri A, Moey M, et al. Cardiovascular toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: an observational, retrospective, pharmacovigilance study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(12):1579-1589.
Zhang L, Awadalla M, Mahmood SS, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated myocarditis. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(18):1733-1743.

Key Takeaway Pearls:

Cardiac involvement in rheumatic diseases is common but often subclinical—maintain high index of suspicion
Low glucose pericardial fluid in RA is inflammatory, not infectious
Young patients with angina and systemic symptoms warrant vasculitis evaluation
Unexplained AV block under age 60 = think cardiac sarcoidosis
ICI myocarditis: elevated troponin demands immediate action regardless of ejection fraction
Giant cell myocarditis requires multi-drug immunosuppression—steroids alone are insufficient
Cardiac MRI is your friend in nearly all these conditions—use it liberally

Search This Blog

Internal medicine