Scarring/arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy
Domenico Corrado, Alessandro Zorzi, Alberto Cipriani, Barbara Bauce, Riccardo Bariani, Giulia Brunetti, Francesca Graziano, Manuel De Lazzari, Giulia Mattesi, Federico Migliore, Kalliopi Pilichou, Ilaria Rigato, Stefania Rizzo, Gaetano Thiene, Martina Perazzolo Marra, Cristina Basso
Abstract
The designation of 'arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy' reflects the evolving concept of a heart muscle disease affecting not only the right ventricle (ARVC) but also the left ventricle (LV), with phenotypic variants characterized by a biventricular (BIV) or predominant LV involvement (ALVC). Herein, we use the term 'scarring/arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (S/ACM)' to emphasize that the disease phenotype is distinctively characterized by loss of ventricular myocardium due to myocyte death with subsequent fibrous or fibro-fatty scar tissue replacement. The myocardial scarring predisposes to potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias and underlies the impairment of systolic ventricular function. S/ACM is an 'umbrella term' which includes a variety of conditions, either genetic or acquired (mostly post-inflammatory), sharing the typical 'scarring' phenotypic features of the disease. Differential diagnoses include 'non-scarring' heart diseases leading to either RV dilatation from left-to-right shunt or LV dilatation/dysfunction from a dilated cardiomyopathy. The development of 2020 upgraded criteria ('Padua criteria') for diagnosis of S/ACM reflected the evolving clinical experience with the expanding spectrum of S/ACM phenotypes and the advances in cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The Padua criteria aimed to improve the diagnosis of S/ACM by incorporation of CMR myocardial tissue characterization findings. Risk stratification of S/ACM patients is mostly based on arrhythmic burden and ventricular dysfunction severity, although other ECG or imaging parameters may have a role. Medical therapy is crucial for treatment of ventricular arrhythmias and heart failure. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the only proven life-saving treatment, despite its significant morbidity because of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. Selection of patients who can benefit the most from ICD therapy is one of the most challenging issues in clinical practice.