SynthesisEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2025
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy management: a systematic review of the clinical practice guidelines and recommendations.
Synthesis in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Nomogram Integrating Inflammatory Biomarkers and Echocardiographic Parameters for Predicting Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction Risk in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Long-term clinical benefit of mavacamten for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in a patient withEuropean heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Exploring the Current Status of Risk Stratification in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: From Risk Models to Promising Techniques.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- No genetic causal links detected between antihypertensive medications and bladder cancer: insights from a trans-ancestry, drug-target Mendelian randomization analysis.Archives of medical science : AMS · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsIn light of recent advances in imaging techniques, molecular understanding and therapeutic options in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), we performed a systematic review of current guidelines for the diagnosis and management of HCM in order to identify consensus and discrepant areas in the clinical practice guidelines. METHODS AND
resultsWe systematically reviewed the English language guidelines and recommendations for the management of HCM in adults. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for guidelines published in the last 10 years. Following a systematic search, three guidelines on the diagnosis and management of HCM were identified, all of which were robustly developed (AGREE rigour of development score ≥50%). These guidelines were authored by the major European (European Society of Cardiology; 2023), American (American Heart Association /American College of Cardiology/American Medical Society for Sports Medicine /Heart Rhythm Society/Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society/Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; 2024), and Japanese [Japanese Circulation Society (JCS)/Japanese Heart Failure Society (JHFS); 2018] cardiovascular societies. There was broad consensus on echocardiographic recommendations, the medical and invasive management of HCM, the application of genetic testing and family screening, and exercise and reproductive recommendations in HCM. There were areas of variability in the definition and diagnostic criteria for HCM, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging recommendations, and assessment of sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk and prevention strategies. Due to the JCS/JHFS guidelines being older, there are no recommendations on the use of cardiac myosin ATPase inhibitors.
conclusionContemporary guidelines for HCM achieve consensus across a broad range of criteria and recommendations concerning diagnosis and management. However, variations in the approach towards risk assessment for SCD exist between the guidelines. There are also more subtle differences concerning diagnostic criteria and the utility of late gadolinium enhancement for risk stratification, which will likely evolve as the evidence-base broadens.
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.