Cardiac amyloidosis is a serious and progressive infiltrative disease that is caused by the deposition of amyloid fibrils at the cardiac level. It can be due to rare genetic variants in the hereditary forms or as a consequence of acquired conditions. Thanks to advances in imaging techniques and the possibility of achieving a non-invasive diagnosis, we now know that cardiac amyloidosis is a more frequent disease than traditionally considered. In this position paper the Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Disease proposes an invasive and non-invasive definition of cardiac amyloidosis, addresses clinical scenarios and situations to suspect the condition and proposes a diagnostic algorithm to aid diagnosis. Furthermore, we also review how to monitor and treat cardiac amyloidosis, in an attempt to bridge the gap between the latest advances in the field and clinical practice.

The original designation of "Arrhythmogenic right ventricular (dysplasia/) cardiomyopathy"(ARVC) was used by the scientists who first discovered the disease, in the pre-genetic and pre-cardiac magnetic resonance era, to describe a new heart muscle disease predominantly affecting the right ventricle, whose cardinal clinical manifestation was the occurrence of malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Subsequently, autopsy investigations, genotypephenotype correlations studies and the increasing use of contrast-enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance showed that the fibro-fatty replacement of the myocardium represents the distinctive phenotypic feature of the disease that affects the myocardium of both ventricles, with left ventricular involvement which may parallel or exceed the severity of right ventricular involvement. This has led to the new designation of "Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy" (ACM), that represents the evolution of the original term of ARVC. The present International Expert Consensus document proposes an upgrade of the criteria for diagnosis of the entire spectrum of the phenotypic variants of ACM. The proposed "Padua criteria" derive from the diagnostic approach to ACM, which has been developed over 30 years by the multidisciplinary team of basic researchers and clinical cardiologists of the Medical School of the University of Padua. The Padua criteria are a working framework to improve the diagnosis of ACM by introducing new diagnostic criteria regarding tissue characterization findings by contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance, depolarization/repolarization ECG abnormalities and ventricular arrhythmia features for diagnosis of the left ventricular phenotype. The proposed diagnostic criteria need to be further validated by future clinical studies in large cohorts of patients.

SummaryBackgroundPatients with dilated cardiomyopathy whose symptoms and cardiac function have recovered often ask whether their medications can be stopped. The safety of withdrawing treatment in this situation is unknown.MethodsWe did an open-label, pilot, randomised trial to examine the effect of phased withdrawal of heart failure medications in patients with previous dilated cardiomyopathy who were now asymptomatic, whose left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) had improved from less than 40% to 50% or greater, whose left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) had normalised, and who had an N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) concentration less than 250 ng/L. Patients were recruited from a network of hospitals in the UK, assessed at one centre (Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK), and randomly assigned (1:1) to phased withdrawal or continuation of treatment. After 6 months, patients in the continued treatment group had treatment withdrawn by the same method. The primary endpoint was a relapse of dilated cardiomyopathy within 6 months, defined by a reduction in LVEF of more than 10% and to less than 50%, an increase in LVEDV by more than 10% and to higher than the normal range, a two-fold rise in NT-pro-BNP concentration and to more than 400 ng/L, or clinical evidence of heart failure, at which point treatments were re-established. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02859311.FindingsBetween April 21, 2016, and Aug 22, 2017, 51 patients were enrolled. 25 were randomly assigned to the treatment withdrawal group and 26 to continue treatment. Over the first 6 months, 11 (44%) patients randomly assigned to treatment withdrawal met the primary endpoint of relapse compared with none of those assigned to continue treatment (Kaplan-Meier estimate of event rate 45·7% [95% CI 28·5–67·2]; p=0·0001). After 6 months, 25 (96%) of 26 patients assigned initially to continue treatment attempted its withdrawal. During the following 6 months, nine patients met the primary endpoint of relapse (Kaplan-Meier estimate of event rate 36·0% [95% CI 20·6–57·8]). No deaths were reported in either group and three serious adverse events were reported in the treatment withdrawal group: hospital admissions for non-cardiac chest pain, sepsis, and an elective procedure.InterpretationMany patients deemed to have recovered from dilated cardiomyopathy will relapse following treatment withdrawal. Until robust predictors of relapse are defined, treatment should continue indefinitely.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Alexander Jansons Foundation, Royal Brompton Hospital and Imperial College London, Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre, Wellcome Trust, and Rosetrees Trust.

No abstract