ArticleGlobal heart2024
Validation of ACC/AHA and ESC Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Guidelines in Diverse Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Cohort: Stratification HCM Study.
Article in Global heart, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Survival Modeling With Echocardiographic Myocardial Texture Radiomics for Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of MRI-Based Left Ventricular Trabecular Complexity for Sudden Cardiac Death in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- A pragmatic clinical risk score for adverse outcomes in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy using routine laboratory and bedside variables.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- 2026 Expert Consensus Recommendations on Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the Task Force of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy in the Era of Precision Medicine: Redefining Diagnosis, Therapeutics and Risk.Cardiac failure review · 2026Article
- CMR-Derived Strain and Torsion Reveal Subclinical Dysfunction in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Prospective Case-Control Study.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Cardiac magnetic resonance research advances in myocardial fibrosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Non-sustained Ventricular Tachycardia and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: When to Consider it as a Risk Factor for Sudden Death and Total Mortality?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major concern in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) have different guidelines for SCD risk stratification. Their comparative performance in diverse populations remains uncertain. Objective: Evaluate the performance of the 2020 ACC/AHA and 2014 ESC guidelines for SCD stratification in a Brazilian cohort with HCM. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients diagnosed with HCM who were followed in a dedicated clinic at a tertiary hospital in Brazil. The primary outcome was SCD, aborted cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation (VF), sustained ventricular tachycardia (SVT), an episode of VF or SVT, or appropriate ICD therapy. Risk prediction models were assessed using the C-index. Results: A total of 187 patients were included, with a mean follow-up of 8.3 years. The 2020 ACC/AHA guidelines classified 106 (56%) patients as high-risk for SCD, while the 2014 ESC guidelines identified 54 (29%). The primary outcome occurred in 12% of the high-risk group identified by the ACC/AHA guidelines and 13% of the high-risk group identified by the ESC guidelines. Both guidelines showed low discriminatory power for SCD risk in this Brazilian cohort, with AUC values of 0.634 and 0.581 for the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines, respectively. Conclusions: The 2020 ACC/AHA and 2014 ESC guidelines have limitations in predicting SCD events and defining ICD indications in Brazilian HCM patients. Further studies are needed to refine risk stratification and optimize SCD prevention in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.