Gallina, Sabina

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathies (ACMs) are a phenotypically and etiologically heterogeneous group of myocardial disorders characterized by fibrotic or fibro-fatty replacement of ventricular myocardium, electrical instability, and an elevated risk of sudden cardiac death. Initially identified as a right ventricular disease, ACMs are now recognized to include biventricular and left-dominant forms. Genetic causes account for a substantial proportion of cases and include desmosomal variants, non-desmosomal variants, and familial gene-elusive forms with no identifiable pathogenic mutation. Nongenetic etiologies, including post-inflammatory, autoimmune, and infiltrative mechanisms, may mimic the phenotype. In many patients, the disease remains idiopathic despite comprehensive evaluation. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging has emerged as a key tool for identifying non-ischemic scar patterns and for distinguishing arrhythmogenic phenotypes from other cardiomyopathies. Emerging classifications propose the unifying concept of scarring cardiomyopathies based on shared structural substrates, although global consensus is evolving. Risk stratification remains challenging, particularly in patients without overt systolic dysfunction or identifiable genetic markers. Advances in tissue phenotyping, multi-omics, and artificial intelligence hold promise for improved prognostic assessment and individualized therapy.

Abstract Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is addressed in international guidelines and expert consensus statements. To assist clinicians in their routine practice and support decision-making, we performed a systematic review of the most relevant guidelines and recommendations for ACM diagnosis and management. Our search, covering MEDLINE, EMBASE, and resources from scientific societies over the last 10 years, identified two guidelines and three consensus statements that met rigorous inclusion criteria for detailed analysis. In the examined documents, key areas of agreement included the critical role of cardiac imaging for initial diagnosis and ongoing monitoring, genetic testing in index patients, ventricular arrhythmia management, catheter ablation indications, heart failure treatment strategies, and exercise recommendations. However, significant differences were found in definitions and diagnostic criteria for ACM, interpretation of phenocopies, management of family members, and criteria for implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Additional discrepancies emerged regarding the role of multidisciplinary teams, non-cardiac surgical considerations, atrial fibrillation management, and reproductive issues. Crucially, there remain considerable gaps in evidence, especially in areas such as the management and follow-up of patients with potential or borderline ACM diagnoses, as well as the care of their relatives. The clinical implications of genetic findings, along with the clinical management of left-dominant, biventricular phenotypes, and hot phases of disease, are also insufficiently addressed. Furthermore, a critical shortfall is the lack of externally validated risk assessment tools to guide clinical decision-making. Bridging these gaps could help guiding future research and guideline development towards improving patient outcomes.

Abstract Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a clinical diagnosis characterized by the presence of left ventricular dilatation and systolic dysfunction unexplained by abnormal loading conditions or coronary artery disease. However, a broad range of phenotypic manifestations, encompassing isolated scar, DCM with preserved ejection fraction, and overt DCM, should be regarded as a diagnostic classification representing a broad spectrum of underlying aetiologies, including both inherited and acquired heart muscle disorders. A multimodal non-invasive imaging approach is essential for accurate morpho-functional assessment of cardiac chambers and is key to establish the cardiac phenotype and to rule out an underlying ischaemic aetiology. Furthermore, advanced imaging techniques enable deep cardiovascular phenotyping and non-invasive tissue characterization. The aim of this review is to propose a systematic approach to the diagnosis of DCM, emphasizing the importance of genetics and clinical findings for a precise and practical clinical approach. Also, we strive to qualify the role of cardiac imaging in the diagnosis of DCM, particularly on the relevance of novel techniques and clinical utility of actionable parameters to improve current diagnostic schemes and risk stratification algorithms. We further elaborate on the role of cardiac imaging to deliver optimal guidance to aetiology-based therapeutic approaches, verification of treatment response and disease progression monitoring.

Abstract Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is extensively discussed in numerous expert consensus documents and international guidelines, with differing recommendations. To support clinicians in daily practice and decision-making, we conducted a systematic review of key guidelines and recommendations concerning the diagnosis and clinical management of DCM. Our research encompassed MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for relevant articles published, as well as the websites of relevant scientific societies. We identified two guidelines and one scientific statement that met stringent criteria, thereby qualifying them for detailed systematic analysis. Our review revealed consensus on several key aspects: the definition of DCM, the use of B-type natriuretic peptides and high-sensitivity troponin in laboratory testing, the essential role of multimodality cardiovascular imaging for initial diagnosis, genetic counselling, and the management of advanced disease. Nonetheless, notable areas of variation included the formation of multidisciplinary management teams, the role of cascade genetic testing, pathways for arrhythmic risk stratification, and the criteria for prophylactic defibrillator implantation. Significant evidence gaps persist, particularly regarding the clinical trajectory of genetic, non-genetic and gene-elusive forms of DCM, the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance in phenotype-negative family members with genotype-positive probands, and the development of potential aetiology-oriented therapies. Addressing these gaps could enhance clinical outcomes and inform future research directions and guideline development.

Abstract Technological advances have made diagnosis of heart rhythm disturbances much easier, with a wide variety of options, including single-lead portable devices, smartphones/watches to sophisticated implantable cardiac monitors, allowing accurate data to be collected over different time periods depending on symptoms frequency. This review provides an overview of the novel and existing heart rhythm testing options, including a description of the supporting evidence for their use. A description of each of the tests is provided, along with discussion of their advantages and limitations. This is intended to help clinicians towards choosing the most appropriate test, thus improving diagnostic yield management of patients with suspected arrhythmias.

Abstract Recent technological advances have facilitated and diversified the options available for the diagnosis of cardiac arrhythmias. Ranging from simple resting or exercise electrocardiograms to more sophisticated and expensive smartphones and implantable cardiac monitors. These tests and devices may be used for varying periods of time depending on symptom frequency. The choice of the most appropriate heart rhythm test should be guided by clinical evaluation and optimized following accurate characterization of underlying symptoms, ‘red flags’, risk factors, and consideration of cost-effectiveness of the different tests. This review provides evidence-based guidance for assessing suspected arrhythmia in patients who present with symptoms or in the context of screening, such as atrial fibrillation or advanced conduction disturbances following transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk groups. This is intended to help clinicians choose the most appropriate diagnostic tool to facilitate the management of patients with suspected arrhythmias.

Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC), or long COVID syndrome, is emerging as a major health issue in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Symptoms commonly experienced by patients include fatigue, palpitations, chest pain, dyspnea, reduced exercise tolerance, and “brain fog”. Additionally, symptoms of orthostatic intolerance and syncope suggest the involvement of the autonomic nervous system. Signs of cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction appear to be common in PASC and are similar to those observed in postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and inappropriate sinus tachycardia. In this review, we report on the epidemiology of PASC, discuss current evidence and possible mechanisms underpinning the dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system, and suggest nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions to treat and relieve symptoms of PASC-associated dysautonomia.

Abstract Multiple guidelines exist for the management of aortic stenosis (AS). We systematically reviewed current guidelines and recommendations, developed by national or international medical organizations, on management of AS to aid clinical decision-making. Publications in MEDLINE and EMBASE between 1 June 2010 and 15 January 2021 were identified. Additionally, the International Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and websites of relevant organizations were searched. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Two reviewers assessed rigour of guideline development and extracted the recommendations. Of the seven guidelines and recommendations retrieved, five showed considerable rigour of development. Those rigourously developed, agreed on the definition of severe AS and diverse haemodynamic phenotypes, indications and contraindications for intervention in symptomatic severe AS, surveillance intervals in asymptomatic severe AS, and the importance of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) and shared decision-making. Discrepancies exist in age and surgical risk cut-offs for recommending surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) vs. transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), the use of biomarkers and complementary multimodality imaging for decision-making in asymptomatic patients and surveillance intervals for non-severe AS. Contemporary guidelines for AS management agree on the importance of MDT involvement and shared decision-making for individualized treatment and unanimously indicate valve replacement in severe, symptomatic AS. Discrepancies exist in thresholds for age and procedural risk used in choosing between SAVR and TAVI, role of biomarkers and complementary imaging modalities to define AS severity and risk of progression in asymptomatic patients.