Search

Background and Aims: Contemporary multicentre data on clinical and diagnostic spectrum and outcome in myocarditis are limited. Study aims were to describe baseline features, 1-year follow-up, and baseline predictors of outcome in clinically suspected or biopsy-proven myocarditis (2013 European Society of Cardiology criteria) in adult and paediatric patients from the EURObservational Research Programme Cardiomyopathy and Myocarditis Long-Term Registry., Methods: Five hundred eighty-one (68.0% male) patients, 493 adults, median age 38 (27-52) years, and 88 children, aged 8 (3-13) years, were divided into 3 groups: Group 1 (n = 233), clinically suspected myocarditis with abnormal cardiac magnetic resonance; Group 2 (n = 222), biopsy-proven myocarditis; and Group 3 (n = 126) clinically suspected myocarditis with normal or inconclusive or no cardiac magnetic resonance. Baseline features were analysed overall, in adults vs. children, and among groups. One-year outcome events included death/heart transplantation, ventricular assist device (VAD) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation, and hospitalization for cardiac causes., Results: Endomyocardial biopsy, mainly right ventricular, had a similarly low complication rate in children and adults (4.7% vs. 4.9%, P = NS), with no procedure-related death. A classical myocarditis pattern on cardiac magnetic resonance was found in 31.3% of children and in 57.9% of adults with biopsy-proven myocarditis (P < .001). At 1-year follow-up, 11/410 patients (2.7%) died, 7 (1.7%) received a heart transplant, 3 underwent VAD (0.7%), and 16 (3.9%) underwent ICD implantation. Independent predictors at diagnosis of death or heart transplantation or hospitalization or VAD implantation or ICD implantation at 1-year follow-up were lower left ventricular ejection fraction and the need for immunosuppressants for new myocarditis diagnosis refractory to non-aetiology-driven therapy., Conclusions: Endomyocardial biopsy was safe, and cardiac magnetic resonance using Lake Louise criteria was less sensitive, particularly in children. Virus-negative lymphocytic myocarditis was predominant both in children and adults, and use of immunosuppressive treatments was low. Lower left ventricular ejection fraction and the need for immunosuppressants at diagnosis were independent predictors of unfavourable outcome events at 1 year., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a complex disease where genetics interplay with extrinsic factors. This study aims to compare the phenotype, management, and outcome of familial DCM (FDCM) and non-familial (sporadic) DCM (SDCM) across Europe., Methods and Results: Patients with DCM that were enrolled in the prospective ESC EORP Cardiomyopathy & Myocarditis Registry were included. Baseline characteristics, genetic testing, genetic yield, and outcome were analysed comparing FDCM and SDCM; 1260 adult patients were studied (238 FDCM, 707 SDCM, and 315 not disclosed). Patients with FDCM were younger (P < 0.01), had less severe disease phenotype at presentation (P < 0.02), more favourable baseline cardiovascular risk profiles (P ≤ 0.007), and less medication use (P ≤ 0.042). Outcome at 1 year was similar and predicted by NYHA class (HR 0.45; 95% CI [0.25-0.81]) and LVEF per % decrease (HR 1.05; 95% CI [1.02-1.08]. Throughout Europe, patients with FDCM received more genetic testing (47% vs. 8%, P < 0.01) and had higher genetic yield (55% vs. 22%, P < 0.01)., Conclusions: We observed that FDCM and SDCM have significant differences at baseline but similar short-term prognosis. Whether modification of associated cardiovascular risk factors provide opportunities for treatment remains to be investigated. Our results also show a prevalent role of genetics in FDCM and a non-marginal yield in SDCM although genetic testing is largely neglected in SDCM. Limited genetic testing and heterogeneity in panels provides a scaffold for improvement of guideline adherence., (©2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Cardiomyopathies comprise a heterogeneous group of diseases, often of genetic origin. We assessed the current practice of genetic counselling and testing in the prospective European Society of Cardiology EURObservational Research Programme Cardiomyopathy Registry., Methods and Results: A total of 3208 adult patients from 69 centres in 18 countries were enrolled. Genetic counselling was performed in 60.8% of all patients [75.4% in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), 39.2% in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), 70.8% in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), and 49.2% in restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM), P < 0.001]. Comparing European geographical areas, genetic counselling was performed from 42.4% to 83.3% (P < 0.001). It was provided by a cardiologist (85.3%), geneticist (15.1%), genetic counsellor (11.3%), or a nurse (7.5%) (P < 0.001). Genetic testing was performed in 37.3% of all patients (48.8% in HCM, 18.6% in DCM, 55.6% in ARVC, and 43.6% in RCM, P < 0.001). Index patients with genetic testing were younger at diagnosis and had more familial disease, family history of sudden cardiac death, or implanted cardioverter defibrillators but less co-morbidities than those not tested (P < 0.001 for each comparison). At least one disease-causing variant was found in 41.7% of index patients with genetic testing (43.3% in HCM, 33.3% in DCM, 51.4% in ARVC, and 42.9% in RCM, P = 0.13)., Conclusions: This is the first detailed report on the real-life practice of genetic counselling and testing in cardiomyopathies in Europe. Genetic counselling and testing were performed in a substantial proportion of patients but less often than recommended by European guidelines and much less in DCM than in HCM and ARVC, despite evidence for genetic background., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The Cardiomyopathy Registry of the EURObservational Research Programme is a prospective, observational, and multinational registry of consecutive patients with four cardiomyopathy subtypes: hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), and restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM). We report the baseline characteristics and management of adults enrolled in the registry., Methods and Results: A total of 3208 patients were enrolled by 69 centres in 18 countries [HCM (n = 1739); DCM (n = 1260); ARVC (n = 143); and RCM (n = 66)]. Differences between cardiomyopathy subtypes (P < 0.001) were observed for age at diagnosis, history of familial disease, history of sustained ventricular arrhythmia, use of magnetic resonance imaging or genetic testing, and implantation of defibrillators. When compared with probands, relatives had a lower age at diagnosis (P < 0.001), but a similar rate of symptoms and defibrillators. When compared with the Long-Term phase, patients of the Pilot phase (enrolled in more expert centres) had a more frequent rate of familial disease (P < 0.001), were more frequently diagnosed with a rare underlying disease (P < 0.001), and more frequently implanted with a defibrillator (P = 0.023). Comparing four geographical areas, patients from Southern Europe had a familial disease more frequently (P < 0.001), were more frequently diagnosed in the context of a family screening (P < 0.001), and more frequently diagnosed with a rare underlying disease (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: By providing contemporary observational data on characteristics and management of patients with cardiomyopathies, the registry provides a platform for the evaluation of guideline implementation. Potential gaps with existing recommendations are discussed as well as some suggestions for improvement of health care provision in Europe.