Background/Objectives: Cardiac hemangiomas are rare benign vascular tumors, accounting for less than 2% of primary cardiac tumors. Despite their rarity, they can cause significant clinical effects depending on their size and location. This systematic review aims to provide an updated analysis of recent cases, focusing on epidemiology, histopathological subtypes, clinical presentation, diagnostic approaches, and treatment outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed database identified case reports and series published between 2019 and 2025. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 55 eligible cases were selected for analysis. Data were extracted on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, imaging methods, treatment strategies, and follow-up outcomes. Results: Cavernous hemangiomas were the most commonly reported subtype. Patient ages ranged from infancy to over 85 years, with a slight predominance in females. Presentations varied from asymptomatic incidental findings to symptoms such as dyspnea and chest pain. Echocardiography was the primary diagnostic tool in over 80% of cases. Surgical resection was performed in 87.3% of patients, yielding favorable outcomes and low recurrence. However, follow-up duration was inconsistent, and long-term outcomes were underreported, underscoring the lack of standardized surveillance protocols. This variability limits clinicians’ ability to assess recurrence risk and long-term prognosis, highlighting the need for evidence-based guidelines to inform structured follow-up and improve patient care. Conclusions: The increasing number of published cases likely reflects improved diagnostic imaging and greater clinical awareness. While surgery remains the preferred treatment, the variability in follow-up and diagnostic reporting highlights the need for standardized protocols. Further studies are warranted to clarify the natural history, refine classification systems, and establish evidence-based guidelines for the management of this rare cardiac tumor.

Background: The effect of PPM in mechanical prostheses on long-term survival is not well-established. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000 and 2011 were retrospectively analyzed (n = 416). Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in patient subgroups (PPM vs. no PPM; severe PPM vs. no severe PPM). Results: Five- and ten-year survival was 78 ± 3.52% and 64.51 ± 4.51% in patients with PPM, versus 83.3 ± 3.12% and 69.37 ± 4.36% in patients without (p = 0.28) when analyzed at 10.39 ± 5.25 years after the primary procedure. Independent risk factors for impaired survival, after matching, were age, serum creatinine, and severe pulmonary hypertension. Five- and ten-year survival in patients with severe PPM was 73.34 ± 6.01% and 61.76 ± 8.17%, respectively, versus 74.72 ± 5.68% and 67.50 ± 7.09% in those without (p = 0.49), at 8.82 ± 5.17 years after SAVR. Age was the only independent variable that influenced long-term survival when severe PPM was added to the model. Conclusions: PPM or severe PPM does not impact long-term survival up to 10 years in mechanical valve recipients when matching for preoperative variables.

Background: The long-term performance of prostheses in the small aortic root is still unclear. Methods: Patients who received a 21 mm or smaller aortic valve between 2000–2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity matching was used in order to account for baseline differences in 19 mm vs. 21 mm valve subgroups. Results: Survival at 10 years was 55.87 ± 5.54% for 19 mm valves vs. 57.17 ± 2.82% for 21 mm ones in the original cohort (p = 0.37), and 58.69 ± 5.61% in 19 mm valve recipients vs. 53.60 ± 5.66% for 21 mm valve subgroups in the matched cohort (p = 0.55). Smaller valves exhibited significantly more patient–prothesis mismatch (PPM) than larger ones (87.30% vs. 57.94%, p < 0.01). All-cause mortality was affected by PPM at 10 years (52.66 ± 3.28% vs. 64.38 ± 3.87%, p = 0.04) in the unmatched population. This difference disappeared, however, after matching: survival at 10 years was 51.82 ± 5.26% in patients with PPM and 63.12 ± 6.43% in patients without PPM. (p = 0.14) Conclusions: There is no survival penalty in using 19 mm prostheses in the small aortic root in the current era. Although PPM is more prevalent in smaller sized valve recipients, this does not translate into reduced survival at 10 years of follow-up.

Mechanical complications after acute myocardial infarction (MI)—ventricular septal rupture (VSR), free-wall rupture (FWR), and papillary muscle rupture (PMR)—have become uncommon in the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era, yet remain among the most lethal cardiovascular emergencies, with contemporary mortality largely driven by cardiogenic shock and delays to definitive treatment. Although major society documents agree on urgent imaging, early mechanical circulatory support when shock is present, and multidisciplinary decision-making, important transatlantic differences persist, particularly regarding timing of intervention in ventricular septal rupture. This review synthesises current surgical and transcatheter evidence and proposes a unified, physiology-centred framework integrating shock staging, anatomical feasibility, and response to mechanical support. We also introduce STABLE, a structured bedside checklist designed to support consistent daily triage across all three lesions and to align timing decisions with haemodynamic stabilisation rather than centre-specific habit.

Background and Clinical Significance: Atrial septal defects (ASDs), particularly the ostium secundum type, are congenital cardiac anomalies that can lead to serious complications if left untreated. Percutaneous closure using devices like the Amplatzer Septal Occluder (ASO) has become a widely accepted approach, although complications such as device embolization can occur. Case Presentation: We present a unique case of a 28-year-old woman who developed acute hemodynamic instability and arrhythmias following embolization of an Amplatzer device into the right ventricle during an ASD closure. Despite initial treatment with antiarrhythmic medication, the patient required urgent open-heart surgery for device retrieval and ASD closure. The surgery successfully involved pericardial patch closure of the ASD, device removal from the right ventricle, and the performance of the Kay procedure to address significant tricuspid regurgitation. Postoperative recovery was uneventful, with the patient stabilized and discharged in stable condition. Conclusions: This case highlights the critical need for rapid surgical intervention in cases of device embolization, and the importance of multidisciplinary coordination in managing such complex complications. The combination of ASD closure, device retrieval, and tricuspid valve repair led to a successful outcome, underscoring the importance of timely, decisive action in complex cardiovascular emergencies.

Background/Objectives: Pericardial effusion may occur in patients with established cancer but may also represent the first manifestation of an occult malignancy. This study evaluated the diagnostic contribution of pericardial fluid cytology and pathological assessment according to previous oncological status, with particular emphasis on previously unrecognized malignancy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients hospitalized with pericardial disease between January 2021 and December 2025 at a tertiary cardiovascular center. The final cohort comprised 234 clinical episodes in 209 patients. Clinical, laboratory, imaging, procedural, cytological, and histopathological data were analyzed in relation to previous oncological status and malignant pericardial involvement. Results: Pathological assessment was available in 95/234 episodes (40.6%), with neoplastic involvement identified in 21/95 (22.1%). Neoplastic findings occurred in 13/33 (39.4%) evaluable episodes with known malignancy and 8/62 (12.9%) without a previous cancer diagnosis (odds ratio, 4.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.59–12.11; p = 0.004). Conversely, 20/33 (60.6%) evaluable episodes in patients with known cancer showed no neoplastic involvement. In all eight patients without previously known malignancy, pericardial fluid cytology provided the first pathological evidence of cancer; six (75%) had findings suggestive of a pulmonary origin. All presented with large effusions and hemodynamic compromise. Conclusions: Pericardial pathological assessment provides diagnostic information beyond previous oncological status. It can distinguish malignant from non-neoplastic pericardial involvement in patients with established cancer while also revealing occult malignancy when pericardial disease is its first presentation.