Key result
Left ventricular hypertrabeculation warrants a risk-based approach as an anatomical variant rather than distinct cardiomyopathy.
Why the study?
Understanding of left ventricular hypertrabeculation remains incomplete, with inconclusive data regarding associated syndromes and persistent uncertainties in diagnosis and management.
The review provides a comprehensive clinical perspective on left ventricular hypertrabeculation, supporting its recent reclassification as a descriptive phenotypic trait rather than a primary cardiomyopathy, and emphasizing pragmatic imaging and management approaches to avoid overdiagnosis.
Supports risk-based evaluation over routine cardiomyopathy labeling; extends reclassification but leaves prospective validation open.
Left ventricular hypertrabeculation (LVHT), previously referred to as left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC), has experienced fluctuating recognition in cardiology. Once defined as a primary genetic cardiomyopathy, this intriguing myocardial feature is now considered a "trait" in the most recent guidelines. However, the understanding of this phenomenon remains incomplete. Moreover, data on the association between this feature and other syndromes are inconclusive, and further advances in understanding the associated molecular mechanisms and genetic background are needed. A systematic collection of clinical data is essential to avoid both over- and underdiagnosis, thereby reducing current uncertainties in LVHT management. This review examines the diagnostic, pathophysiological, and management aspects of LVHT, highlighting the challenging nature of this feature and proposing a practical approach for clinicians.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parodi et al. (2026) conducted a review in Left ventricular hypertrabeculation (LVHT). Left ventricular hypertrabeculation was evaluated. Left ventricular hypertrabeculation is increasingly viewed as an anatomical variant rather than a distinct cardiomyopathy, requiring a tailored, risk-based clinical approach for patient management.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: