scholarly journals Understanding the Myocardial Architecture of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy for Clinical Care

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (20) ◽  
pp. 2503-2505 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. McKenna ◽  
James C. Moon ◽  
Abdulbaset Sulaiman
Author(s):  
Constantinos O’Mahony

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) secondary to ventricular arrhythmias is the most common mode of death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and can be effectively prevented with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The risk of SCD in HCM relates to the severity of the phenotype and regular risk stratification is an integral part of routine clinical care. For the primary prevention of SCD, risk stratification involves the assessment of seven readily available clinical parameters (age, maximal left ventricular wall thickness, left atrial diameter, left ventricular outflow tract gradient, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, unexplained syncope, and family history of SCD) which are used to estimate the risk of SCD within 5 years of clinical evaluation using a statistical risk prediction model (HCM Risk-SCD). The 2014 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines provide a framework to aid clinical decisions and consider patients with a 5-year risk of SCD of less than 4% as low risk and recommend regular assessment while those with a risk of 6% or higher should be considered for an ICD. In patients with an intermediate risk (4% to <6%) ICD implantation may also be considered after taking into account age, co-morbid conditions, socioeconomic factors, and the psychological impact of therapy. Survivors of ventricular fibrillation arrest should receive an ICD for secondary prevention unless their life expectancy is less than 1 year. Following device implantation, patients should be followed up for device- and disease-related complications, particularly heart failure and cerebrovascular disease.


ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 1462-1466
Author(s):  
Constantinos O’Mahony

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) secondary to ventricular arrhythmias is the most common mode of death in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and can be effectively prevented with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The risk of SCD in HCM relates to the severity of the phenotype and regular risk stratification is an integral part of routine clinical care. For the primary prevention of SCD, risk stratification involves the assessment of seven readily available clinical parameters (age, maximal left ventricular wall thickness, left atrial diameter, left ventricular outflow tract gradient, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, unexplained syncope, and family history of SCD) which are used to estimate the risk of SCD within 5 years of clinical evaluation using a statistical risk prediction model (HCM Risk-SCD). The 2014 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines provide a framework to aid clinical decisions and consider patients with a 5-year risk of SCD of less than 4% as low risk and recommend regular assessment while those with a risk of 6% or higher should be considered for an ICD. In patients with an intermediate risk (4% to <6%) ICD implantation may also be considered after taking into account age, co-morbid conditions, socioeconomic factors, and the psychological impact of therapy. Survivors of ventricular fibrillation arrest should receive an ICD for secondary prevention unless their life expectancy is less than 1 year. Following device implantation, patients should be followed up for device- and disease-related complications, particularly heart failure and cerebrovascular disease.


2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-117
Author(s):  
Lidia Hategan ◽  
Beáta Csányi ◽  
János Borbás ◽  
Eszter Dalma Pálinkás ◽  
Hedvig Takács ◽  
...  

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common genetic cardiovascular disorder worldwide which exhibits considerable genetic heterogeneity. Widespread utilization of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in HCM has uncovered substantial genetic variation and highlighted the importance of a standardized approach to variant interpretation. According to this, accurate and consistent interpretation of sequence variants is essential for effective clinical care for individuals and their families with HCM. With this regard, the 2015 guidelines from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) were widely applicable, but several elements lacked specificity for given genes or diseases. The latter guideline was adapted for the most frequent causative HCM gene, the beta myosin heavy chain gene (MYH7) by the ClinGen (Clinical Genome Resource) expert panel, the Inherited Cardiomyopathy Expert Panel. Due to the adaptation, the guideline became gene-specific, with general considerations which are widely adaptable for most of the causative genes in HCM. Based on the modified guideline, web-based interpretation algorithms have been developed which integrate data from population databases and define pathogenicity of different variants independent of the observer, therefore aiding standardized clinical interpretation of genetic testing. The latter approach serves as a basis for recommendation for genetic testing in the recent ACC/AHA HCM guideline published in 2020. The current review is meant to compile the latest advances in HCM genetic testing in clinical practice, while bringing into focus some of the ongoing challenges clinical geneticists are still facing. Although nowadays the interpretation of genetic findings is two steps closer to a more accurate approach due to gene adaptation and automatization, the multitude of putative causative genes have been once again reduced to the 8 sarcomere genes, a backward step.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 707-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Peterson ◽  
Adrian M. Owen

In recent years, rapid technological developments in the field of neuroimaging have provided several new methods for revealing thoughts, actions and intentions based solely on the pattern of activity that is observed in the brain. In specialized centres, these methods are now being employed routinely to assess residual cognition, detect consciousness and even communicate with some behaviorally non-responsive patients who clinically appear to be comatose or in a vegetative state. In this article, we consider some of the ethical issues raised by these developments and the profound implications they have for clinical care, diagnosis, prognosis and medical-legal decision-making after severe brain injury.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 738-761
Author(s):  
Tess K. Koerner ◽  
Melissa A. Papesh ◽  
Frederick J. Gallun

Purpose A questionnaire survey was conducted to collect information from clinical audiologists about rehabilitation options for adult patients who report significant auditory difficulties despite having normal or near-normal hearing sensitivity. This work aimed to provide more information about what audiologists are currently doing in the clinic to manage auditory difficulties in this patient population and their views on the efficacy of recommended rehabilitation methods. Method A questionnaire survey containing multiple-choice and open-ended questions was developed and disseminated online. Invitations to participate were delivered via e-mail listservs and through business cards provided at annual audiology conferences. All responses were anonymous at the time of data collection. Results Responses were collected from 209 participants. The majority of participants reported seeing at least one normal-hearing patient per month who reported significant communication difficulties. However, few respondents indicated that their location had specific protocols for the treatment of these patients. Counseling was reported as the most frequent rehabilitation method, but results revealed that audiologists across various work settings are also successfully starting to fit patients with mild-gain hearing aids. Responses indicated that patient compliance with computer-based auditory training methods was regarded as low, with patients generally preferring device-based rehabilitation options. Conclusions Results from this questionnaire survey strongly suggest that audiologists frequently see normal-hearing patients who report auditory difficulties, but that few clinicians are equipped with established protocols for diagnosis and management. While many feel that mild-gain hearing aids provide considerable benefit for these patients, very little research has been conducted to date to support the use of hearing aids or other rehabilitation options for this unique patient population. This study reveals the critical need for additional research to establish evidence-based practice guidelines that will empower clinicians to provide a high level of clinical care and effective rehabilitation strategies to these patients.


2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-99
Author(s):  
Michael F. Vaezi

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a commonly diagnosed condition often associated with the typical symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation, although it may present with atypical symptoms such as chest pain, hoarseness, chronic cough, and asthma. In most cases, the patient's reduced quality of life drives clinical care and diagnostic testing. Because of its widespread impact on voice and swallowing function as well as its social implications, it is important that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) understand the nature of GERD and its consequences. The purpose of this article is to summarize the nature of GERD and GERD-related complications such as GERD-related peptic stricture, Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma, and laryngeal manifestations of GERD from a gastroenterologist's perspective. It is critical that SLPs who work with a multidisciplinary team understand terminology, diagnostic tools, and treatment to ensure best practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document