Background— The impressive clinical heterogeneity of the long-QT syndrome (LQTS) remains partially unexplained. In a South African (SA) founder population, we identified a common LQTS type 1 (LQT1)–causing mutation ( KCNQ1 -A341V) associated with high clinical severity. We tested whether the arrhythmic risk was caused directly by A341V or by its presence in the specific ethnic setting of the SA families. Methods and Results— Seventy-eight patients, all with a single KCNQ1 -A341V mutation, from 21 families and 8 countries were compared with 166 SA patients with A341V and with 205 non-A341V LQT1 patients. In the 2 A341V populations (SA and non-SA), the probability of a first event through 40 years of age was similar (76% and 82%), and the QTc was 484±42 versus 485±45 ms ( P =NS). Compared with the 205 non-A341V patients with the same median follow-up (30 versus 32 years), the 244 A341V patients were more likely to have cardiac events (75% versus 24%), were younger at first event (6 versus 11 years), and had a longer QTc (485±43 versus 465±38 ms) (all P <0.001). Arrhythmic risk remained higher ( P <0.0001) even when the A341V patients were compared with non-A341V patients with mutations either localized to transmembrane domains or exhibiting a dominant-negative effect. A341V patients had more events despite β-blocker therapy. Conclusions— The hot spot KCNQ1 -A341V predicts high clinical severity independently of the ethnic origin of the families. This higher risk of cardiac events also persists when compared with LQT1 patients with either transmembrane or dominant-negative mutations. The identification of this high-risk mutation and possibly others may improve the risk stratification and management of LQTS .

In 1993, Przyklenk and colleagues made the intriguing experimental observation that ‘brief ischemia in one vascular bed also protects remote, virgin myocardium from subsequent sustained coronary artery occlusion’ and that this effect ‘…. may be mediated by factor(s) activated, produced, or transported throughout the heart during brief ischemia/reperfusion’. This seminal study laid the foundation for the discovery of ‘remote ischemic conditioning’ (RIC), a phenomenon in which the heart is protected from the detrimental effects of acute ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI), by applying cycles of brief ischemia and reperfusion to an organ or tissue remote from the heart. The concept of RIC quickly evolved to extend beyond the heart, encompassing inter-organ protection against acute IRI. The crucial discovery that the protective RIC stimulus could be applied non-invasively, by simply inflating and deflating a blood pressure cuff placed on the upper arm to induce cycles of brief ischemia and reperfusion, has facilitated the translation of RIC into the clinical setting. Despite intensive investigation over the last 20 years, the underlying mechanisms continue to elude researchers. In the 8th Biennial Hatter Cardiovascular Institute Workshop, recent developments in the field of RIC were discussed with a focus on new insights into the underlying mechanisms, the diversity of non-cardiac protection, new clinical applications, and large outcome studies. The scientific advances made in this field of research highlight the journey that RIC has made from being an intriguing experimental observation to a clinical application with patient benefit.

The assessment of post-myocardial infarction (MI) left ventricular (LV) remodeling by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) currently uses criteria defined by echocardiography. Our aim was to provide CMR criteria for assessing LV remodeling following acute MI. Firstly, 40 reperfused ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with paired acute (4 ± 2 days) and follow-up (5 ± 2 months) CMR scans were analyzed by 2 independent reviewers and the minimal detectable changes (MDCs) for percentage change in LV end-diastolic volume (%ΔLVEDV), LV end-systolic volume (%ΔLVESV), and LV ejection fraction (%ΔLVEF) between the acute and follow-up scans were determined. Secondly, in 146 reperfused STEMI patients, receiver operator characteristic curve analyses for predicting LVEF <50% at follow-up (as a surrogate for clinical poor clinical outcome) were undertaken to obtain cut-off values for %ΔLVEDV and %ΔLVESV. The MDCs for %ΔLVEDV, %ΔLVESV, and %ΔLVEF were similar at 12%, 12%, 13%, respectively. The cut-off values for predicting LVEF < 50% at follow-up were 11% for %ΔLVEDV on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (area under the curve (AUC) 0.75, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.83, sensitivity 72% specificity 70%), and 5% for %ΔLVESV (AUC 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90, sensitivity and specificity 78%). Using cut-off MDC values (higher than the clinically important cut-off values) of 12% for both %ΔLVEDV and %ΔLVESV, 4 main patterns of LV remodeling were identified in our cohort: reverse LV remodeling (LVEF predominantly improved); no LV remodeling (LVEF predominantly unchanged); adverse LV remodeling with compensation (LVEF predominantly improved); and adverse LV remodeling (LVEF unchanged or worsened). The MDCs for %ΔLVEDV and %ΔLVESV between the acute and follow-up CMR scans of 12% each may be used to define adverse or reverse LV remodeling post-STEMI. The MDC for %ΔLVEF of 13%, relative to baseline, provides the minimal effect size required for investigating treatments aimed at improving LVEF following acute STEMI.

Older patients are underrepresented in prospective studies and randomized clinical trials of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Over the last decade, a few specific trials have been conducted in this population, allowing more evidence-based management. Older adults are a heterogeneous, complex, and high-risk group whose management requires a multidimensional clinical approach beyond coronary anatomic variables. This review focuses on available data informing evidence-based interventional and pharmacological approaches for older adults with ACS, including guideline-directed management. Overall, an invasive approach appears to demonstrate a better benefit–risk ratio compared to a conservative one across the ACS spectrum, even considering patients’ clinical complexity and multiple comorbidities. Conversely, more powerful strategies of antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention have been associated with increased bleeding events and no benefit in terms of mortality reduction. An interdisciplinary evaluation with geriatric assessment should always be considered to achieve a holistic approach and optimize any treatment on the basis of the underlying biological vulnerability.