Why the study?
Dilated cardiomyopathy is discussed in numerous guidelines with differing recommendations, creating a need to synthesize key guidance to support clinician decision-making.
Systematic Review (n=3)
This systematic review identifies key areas of consensus and variation in current DCM guidelines, highlighting critical evidence gaps in genetic testing and arrhythmic risk stratification that need addressing for future guideline development.
Aids DCM management amid guideline variability; extends prior documents via systematic reconciliation of recommendations.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sorella et al. (2024) conducted a systematic review in Dilated cardiomyopathy (n=3). Clinical practice guidelines and recommendations was evaluated on Consensus and variations in guidelines for diagnosis and management. A systematic review of 2 guidelines and 1 scientific statement found consensus on DCM diagnosis and imaging, but variations in multidisciplinary management, genetic testing, and ICD criteria.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes