A systematic review of 5 guidelines and consensus statements on arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy found agreement on imaging and genetics, but significant discrepancies in diagnostic criteria and ICD use.
Systematic Review (n=5)
What are the areas of agreement and discrepancy in current clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy?
Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements on arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) diagnosis and management published over the last 10 years (2 guidelines and 3 consensus statements).
Areas of agreement, discrepancies, and evidence gaps in ACM diagnosis and management guidelines.
This systematic review highlights significant discrepancies and evidence gaps in current ACM guidelines, particularly regarding diagnostic criteria, ICD indications, and management of borderline cases, underscoring the need for externally validated risk assessment tools.
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.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Lorena Iezzi
University of Padua
Anna Sorella
University of Chieti-Pescara
Kristian Galanti
University of Chieti-Pescara
European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes
University College London
Mayo Clinic
University of Padua
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Iezzi et al. (Mon,) conducted a systematic review in Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (n=5). Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements was evaluated on Areas of agreement, discrepancies, and evidence gaps in diagnosis and management. A systematic review of 5 guidelines and consensus statements on arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy found agreement on imaging and genetics, but significant discrepancies in diagnostic criteria and ICD use.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a081bc11e0fcf4a43e8a7d9 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcaf029