Frigerio, Maria

Aims The outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocarditis and life‐threatening ventricular arrhythmias (LT‐VA) are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and predictors of recurrent major arrhythmic events (MAEs) after hospital discharge in this patient population. Methods and results We retrospectively analysed 156 patients (median age 44 years; 77% male) discharged with a diagnosis of acute myocarditis and LT‐VA from 16 hospitals worldwide. Diagnosis of myocarditis was based on histology or the combination of increased markers of cardiac injury and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) Lake Louise criteria. MAEs were defined as the relapse, after discharge, of sudden cardiac death or successfully defibrillated ventricular fibrillation, or sustained ventricular tachycardia (sVT) requiring implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator therapy or synchronized external cardioversion. Median follow‐up was 23 months [first to third quartile (Q1–Q3) 7–60]. Fifty‐eight (37.2%) patients experienced MAEs after discharge, at a median of 8 months (Q1–Q3 2.5–24.0 months; 60.3% of MAEs within the first year). At multivariable Cox analysis, variables independently associated with MAEs were presentation with sVT [hazard ratio (HR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38–6.11]; late gadolinium enhancement involving ≥2 myocardial segments (HR 4.51, 95% CI 2.39–8.53), and absence of positive short‐tau inversion recovery (STIR) (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.40–4.79) at first CMR. Conclusions Among patients discharged with a diagnosis of myocarditis and LT‐VA, 37.2% had recurrences of MAEs during follow‐up. Initial CMR pattern and sVT at presentation stratify the risk of arrhythmia recurrence.

Myocarditis is an inflammatory disease of the heart that may occur because of infections, immune system activation, or exposure to drugs. The diagnosis of myocarditis has changed due to the introduction of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. We present an expert consensus document aimed to summarize the common terminology related to myocarditis meanwhile highlighting some areas of controversies and uncertainties and the unmet clinical needs. In fact, controversies persist regarding mechanisms that determine the transition from the initial trigger to myocardial inflammation and from acute myocardial damage to chronic ventricular dysfunction. It is still uncertain which viruses (besides enteroviruses) cause direct tissue damage, act as triggers for immune-mediated damage, or both. Regarding terminology, myocarditis can be characterized according to etiology, phase, and severity of the disease, predominant symptoms, and pathological findings. Clinically, acute myocarditis (AM) implies a short time elapsed from the onset of symptoms and diagnosis (generally <1 month). In contrast, chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathy indicates myocardial inflammation with established dilated cardiomyopathy or hypokinetic nondilated phenotype, which in the advanced stages evolves into fibrosis without detectable inflammation. Suggested diagnostic and treatment recommendations for AM and chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathy are mainly based on expert opinion given the lack of well-designed contemporary clinical studies in the field. We will provide a shared and practical approach to patient diagnosis and management, underlying differences between the European and US scientific statements on this topic. We explain the role of histology that defines subtypes of myocarditis and its prognostic and therapeutic implications.