ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2026
Personalized Sudden Cardiac Death Risk Stratification in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Beyond Conventional Risk Scores.
Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Living in the Borderlands Between Electrophysiology and Cardiomyopathy.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM) is one of the most common inherited cardiomyopathies and remains an important cause of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD), particularly in younger individuals. Although the annual incidence of arrhythmic death is relatively low in contemporary cohorts, identifying those patients who may benefit from primary prevention with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) remains a major clinical challenge. Current risk stratification strategies rely on two principal paradigms. The European approach is centered on the HCM Risk-SCD score, whereas the American approach is mainly based on major clinical risk markers. Both strategies have important strengths and limitations, reflecting the persistent difficulty of accurately predicting arrhythmic events in such a heterogeneous disease. The HCM Risk-SCD score has demonstrated robust external validation and high specificity for identifying patients at higher risk, but it may fail to recognize some vulnerable individuals who remain below conventional treatment thresholds. For this reason, several additional risk modifiers have gained increasing relevance in contemporary practice. Among them, extensive late gadolinium enhancement, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, apical aneurysm, and clinically meaningful genetic findings may provide important incremental prognostic information beyond traditional models. Emerging disease-modifying therapies, in particular Mavacamten, may also influence future risk assessment. However, whether these improvements translate into a true reduction in SCD risk remains uncertain. Importantly, the decision to implant an ICD should not depend on numerical risk alone. It should arise from a process of shared decision-making integrating estimated risk, treatment burden, competing comorbidities, age, lifestyle, and patient values. In this context, the concept of an individualized threshold of "acceptable risk" becomes central. In conclusion, prevention of SCD in HCM is moving beyond conventional scores toward a personalized and dynamic framework in which predictive tools, advanced phenotyping, evolving therapies, clinical expertise, and patient preferences are combined to guide individualized care.
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.