Risk stratification scheme. Risk stratification aiming at assessing the risk of VAs and SCD in patients with MVP, involving two phases based on the clinical and imaging context and the uncovered arrhythmia. In the absence of ventricular tachycardia, phenotypic risk features will trigger the intensity of screening for arrhythmia. Green boxes indicate green heart consensus statements and yellow boxes indicate yellow heart consensus statements. High risk - sustained VT, polymorphic NSVT, fast (>180 bpm) NSVT, VT/NSVT resulting in syncope. ICD = implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LA = left atrium; LGE = late gadolinium enhancement; LV-EF = left ventricular ejection fraction; MAD = mitral annular disjunction; MV = mitral valve; PVCs = premature ventricular contractions; TWI = T-wave inversion; VT = ventricular tachycardia. #Additional ECG monitoring method may be used such as loop recorders.

Electrical storm (ES) is a state of electrical instability, manifesting as recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) over a short period of time (three or more episodes of sustained VA within 24 h, separated by at least 5 min, requiring termination by an intervention). The clinical presentation can vary, but ES is usually a cardiac emergency. Electrical storm mainly affects patients with structural or primary electrical heart disease, often with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Management of ES requires a multi-faceted approach and the involvement of multi-disciplinary teams, but despite advanced treatment and often invasive procedures, it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. With an ageing population, longer survival of heart failure patients, and an increasing number of patients with ICD, the incidence of ES is expected to increase. This European Heart Rhythm Association clinical consensus statement focuses on pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluation, and acute and long-term management of patients presenting with ES or clustered VA.

Aims: Diabetes mellitus (DM) aggravates the clinical features of ischaemic and hypertensive heart diseases and worsens the prognosis of heart failure patients. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and diabetes coexist fairly frequently in elderly patients but the impact of DM on the clinical phenotype of HCM is yet unknown. We sought to describe if predominant features of heart failure in DM patients exist independently in HCM. Methods and results: We reviewed clinical characteristics of 937 patients, age ≥40, diagnosed with HCM, from two tertiary medical centres in Spain and Israel. A propensity score matched cohort of 294 patients was also analysed. Our cohort comprised 102 HCM patients with diabetes (8.7%). Patients with DM were older at diagnosis {median 56 [interquartile range (IQR) 47–67] vs. 53 (IQR 43–63), P = 0.02} and had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with DM had a higher prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, pulmonary hypertension, significant mitral regurgitation, and pacemaker implantation. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with DM had a higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (P < 0.001) and lower exercise capacity [7.0 METS (IQR 5.0–10.0) vs. 9.0 METS (IQR 6.6–11.0), P = 0.002]. These findings were independent of age, gender, country of origin, hypertension, and coronary artery disease. Patients with diabetes had a significantly higher 15-year mortality (22% vs. 15%, P = 0.03), with no differences in sudden cardiac death, appropriate implanted cardioverter-defibrillator therapy, or heart transplantation. Conclusion: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients with diabetes are older and have a higher cardiovascular risk profile. They have a lower functional capacity and more heart failure symptoms due to diastolic dysfunction.

Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) is the most frequent valve condition but remains a conundrum in many aspects, particularly in regard to the existence and frequency of an arrhythmic form (AMVP) and its link to sudden cardiac death. Furthermore, the presence, frequency, and significance of the anatomic functional feature called mitral annular disjunction (MAD) have remained widely disputed. Recent case series and cohorts have shattered the concept that MVP is most generally benign and have emphasized the various phenotypes associated with clinically significant ventricular arrhythmias, including AMVP. The definition, evaluation, follow-up, and management of AMVP represent the focus of the present review, strengthened by recent coherent studies defining an arrhythmic MVP phenotypic that would affect a small subset of patients with MVP at concentrated high risk. The role of MAD in this context is of particular importance, and this review highlights the characteristics of AMVP phenotypes and MAD, their clinical, multimodality imaging, and rhythmic evaluation. These seminal facts lead to proposing a risk stratification clinical pathway with consideration of medical, rhythmologic, and surgical management and have been objects of recent expert consensus statements and of proposals for new research directions.