Sekhri, Neha

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.

Background: Identification of people with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who are at risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and require a prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator is challenging. In 2014, the European Society of Cardiology proposed a new risk stratification method based on a risk prediction model (HCM Risk-SCD) that estimates the 5-year risk of SCD. The aim was to externally validate the 2014 European Society of Cardiology recommendations in a geographically diverse cohort of patients recruited from the United States, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Methods: This was an observational, retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Results: The cohort consisted of 3703 patients. Seventy three (2%) patients reached the SCD end point within 5 years of follow-up (5-year incidence, 2.4% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.9–3.0]). The validation study revealed a calibration slope of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.93–1.12), C-index of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.68–0.72), and D-statistic of 1.17 (95% CI, 1.05–1.29). In a complete case analysis (n= 2147; 44 SCD end points at 5 years), patients with a predicted 5-year risk of <4% (n=1524; 71%) had an observed 5-year SCD incidence of 1.4% (95% CI, 0.8–2.2); patients with a predicted risk of ≥6% (n=297; 14%) had an observed SCD incidence of 8.9% (95% CI, 5.96–13.1) at 5 years. For every 13 (297/23) implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantations in patients with an estimated 5-year SCD risk ≥6%, 1 patient can potentially be saved from SCD. Conclusions: This study confirms that the HCM Risk-SCD model provides accurate prognostic information that can be used to target implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients at the highest risk of SCD.