Abstract Myocardial bridging is the most common congenital coronary anomaly, characterized by an intramyocardial course of a segment of an epicardial coronary artery, with considerable variability in its depth and length. In most cases, MB is a benign anatomical variant without clinical significance, often asymptomatic and not requiring treatment. However, with the increasing use of coronary computed tomography angiography for coronary assessment, myocardial bridging is now more frequently identified during non-invasive imaging. It can also be diagnosed via invasive coronary angiography, where it appears as a dynamic systolic compression of the tunnelled artery segment, and further anatomical characterization can be enhanced by intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography. Growing recognition of myocardial bridging’s role in ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries has heightened clinical interest in its prevalence, diagnostic strategies, and management approaches. As such, this narrative review provides clinicians with an updated, evidence-based guide to the diagnosis and therapeutic management of myocardial bridging, while also addressing ongoing controversies and areas of uncertainty.
A reply to the comment on “investigating the ‘diabetes paradox’ in Takotsubo cardiomyopathy”
ABSTRACT Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a high morbidity and mortality condition worldwide frequently complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and decompensated heart failure (HF). Within the management of CS, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices play a critical role in maintaining hemodynamic stability, preserving end‐organ perfusion and bridging patients through to recovery, implantation of durable support or transplantation. Despite their use, optimal timing of initiation, as well as patient and device selection remain unclear. This review explores the current landscape of MCS devices, surrounding evidence and key distinctions between devices. With increasing acknowledgment for the heterogeneity of CS, understanding the strengths and limitations of each device remains crucial to improving outcomes in this high‐risk population.
Investigating the ‘Diabetes Paradox’ in Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy