Background—The clinical profile and arrhythmic outcome of competitive athletes with isolated nonischemic left ventricular (LV) scar as evidenced by contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance remain to be elucidated.Methods and Results—We compared 35 athletes (80% men, age: 14–48 years) with ventricular arrhythmias and isolated LV subepicardial/midmyocardial late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (group A) with 38 athletes with ventricular arrhythmias and no LGE (group B) and 40 healthy control athletes (group C). A stria LGE pattern with subepicardial/midmyocardial distribution, mostly involving the lateral LV wall, was found in 27 (77%) of group A versus 0 controls (group C; P<0.001), whereas a spotty pattern of LGE localized at the junction of the right ventricle to the septum was respectively observed in 11 (31%) versus 10 (25%; P=0.52). All athletes with stria pattern showed ventricular arrhythmias with a predominant right bundle branch block morphology, 13 of 27 (48%) showed ECG repolarization abnormalities, and 5 of 27 (19%) showed echocardiographic hypokinesis of the lateral LV wall. The majority of athletes with no or spotty LGE pattern had ventricular arrhythmias with a predominant left bundle branch block morphology and no ECG or echocardiographic abnormalities. During a follow-up of 38±25 months, 6 of 27 (22%) athletes with stria pattern experienced malignant arrhythmic events such as appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator shock (n=4), sustained ventricular tachycardia (n=1), or sudden death (n=1), compared with none of athletes with no or LGE spotty pattern and controls.Conclusions—Isolated nonischemic LV LGE with a stria pattern may be associated with life-threatening arrhythmias and sudden death in the athlete. Because of its subepicardial/midmyocardial location, LV scar is often not detected by echocardiography.

This paper provides an update on the European Society of Cardiology task force report on the management of chest pain. Its main purpose is to provide an update on the decision algorithms and diagnostic pathways to be used in the emergency department for the assessment and triage of patients with chest pain symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndromes.

Acute cardiovascular care has progressed considerably since the last position paper was published 10 years ago. It is now a well-defined, complex field with demanding multidisciplinary teamworking. The Acute Cardiovascular Care Association has provided this update of the 2005 position paper on acute cardiovascular care organisation, using a multinational working group. The patient population has changed, and intensive cardiovascular care units now manage a large range of conditions from those simply requiring specialised monitoring, to critical cardiovascular diseases with associated multi-organ failure. To describe better intensive cardiovascular care units case mix, acuity of care has been divided into three levels, and then defining intensive cardiovascular care unit functional organisation. For each level of intensive cardiovascular care unit, this document presents the aims of the units, the recommended management structure, the optimal number of staff, the need for specially trained cardiologists and cardiovascular nurses, the desired equipment and architecture, and the interaction with other departments in the hospital and other intensive cardiovascular care units in the region/area. This update emphasises cardiologist training, referring to the recently updated Acute Cardiovascular Care Association core curriculum on acute cardiovascular care. The training of nurses in acute cardiovascular care is additionally addressed. Intensive cardiovascular care unit expertise is not limited to within the unit's geographical boundaries, extending to different specialties and subspecialties of cardiology and other specialties in order to optimally manage the wide scope of acute cardiovascular conditions in frequently highly complex patients. This position paper therefore addresses the need for the inclusion of acute cardiac care and intensive cardiovascular care units within a hospital network, linking university medical centres, large community hospitals, and smaller hospitals with more limited capabilities.

Despite major therapeutic advances over the last decades, complex supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), particularly in the emergency setting or during revascularization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), remain an important clinical problem. Although the incidence of VAs has declined in the hospital phase of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), mainly due to prompt revascularization and optimal medical therapy, still up to 6% patients with ACS develop ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation within the first hours of ACS symptoms. Despite sustained VAs being perceived predictors of worse in-hospital outcomes, specific associations between the type of VAs, arrhythmia timing, applied treatment strategies and long-term prognosis in AMI are vague. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular tachyarrhythmia that may be asymptomatic and/or may be associated with rapid haemodynamic deterioration requiring immediate treatment. It is estimated that over 20% AMI patients may have a history of AF, whereas the new-onset arrhythmia may occur in 5% patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction. Importantly, patients who were treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI and developed AF have higher rates of adverse events and mortality compared with subjects free of arrhythmia. The scope of this position document is to cover the clinical implications and pharmacological/non-pharmacological management of arrhythmias in emergency presentations and during revascularization. Current evidence for clinical relevance of specific types of VAs complicating AMI in relation to arrhythmia timing has been discussed.

Background The impact on long‐term outcomes of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and biventricular defibrillators for cardiac resynchronization (CRT‐D) devices in ‘real world’ patients with heart failure (HF) needs to be assessed in terms of clinical effectiveness. Methods and results A registry including consecutive HF patients who underwent a first implant of an ICD (891 patients) or a CRT‐D device (709 patients) in 2006–2010 was followed (median 1487 days and 1516 days, respectively), collecting administrative data on survival, all‐cause hospitalizations, cardiovascular or HF hospitalizations, and days alive and out of hospital (DAOH). Survival free from death/cardiac transplant was 61.9% and 63.8% at 5 years for ICD and CRT‐D patients, respectively. Associated comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index) had a significant impact on death/cardiac transplant, as well as on hospitalizations. The median values of DAOH% were 97.4% for ICD and 97.7% for CRT‐D patients, but data were highly skewed, with the lower quartile of DAOH% values including values ranging between 0% and 52.8% for ICD and between 0% and 56.1% for CRT‐D patients. Charlson Comorbidity Index was a very strong predictor of DAOH%. Conclusions Patients who were implanted in ‘real world’ clinical practice with an ICD or a CRT‐D device have, on average, a relatively favourable outcome, with a survival of around 62–64% at 5 years, but with an important burden of hospitalizations. Comorbidities, as evaluated by means of the Charlson Comorbidity Index, have a significant impact on outcomes in terms of mortality/heart transplant, hospitalizations and days spent alive and out of hospital.