Search

BACKGROUND: XC001 is a novel adenoviral-5 vector designed to express multiple isoforms of VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) and more safely and potently induce angiogenesis. The EXACT trial (Epicardial Delivery of XC001 Gene Therapy for Refractory Angina Coronary Treatment) assessed the safety and preliminary efficacy of XC001 in patients with no option refractory angina. METHODS: In this single-arm, multicenter, open-label trial, 32 patients with no option refractory angina received a single treatment of XC001 (1 x 1011 viral particles) via transepicardial delivery. RESULTS: There were no severe adverse events attributed to the study drug. Twenty expected severe adverse events in 13 patients were related to the surgical procedure. Total exercise duration increased from a mean±SD of 359.9±105.55 seconds at baseline to 448.2±168.45 (3 months), 449.2±175.9 (6 months), and 477.6±174.7 (12 months; +88.3 [95% CI, 37.1-139.5], +84.5 [95% CI, 34.1-134.9], and +115.5 [95% CI, 59.1-171.9]). Total myocardial perfusion deficit on positron emission tomography imaging decreased by 10.2% (95% CI, -3.1% to 23.5%), 14.3% (95% CI, 2.8%-25.7%), and 10.2% (95% CI, -0.8% to -21.2%). Angina frequency decreased from a mean±SD 12.2±12.5 episodes to 5.2±7.2 (3 months), 5.1±7.8 (6 months), and 2.7±4.8 (12 months), with an average decrease of 7.7 (95% CI, 4.1-11.3), 6.6 (95% CI, 3.5-9.7), and 8.8 (4.6-13.0) episodes at 3, 6, and 12 months. Angina class improved in 81% of participants at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: XC001 administered via transepicardial delivery is safe and generally well tolerated. Exploratory improvements in total exercise duration, ischemic burden, and subjective measures support a biologic effect sustained to 12 months, warranting further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality in comparison with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular end points was myocardial infarction (MI).Methods: ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite end points of the trial be analyzed using 2 MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery bypass grafting. Procedural MI definitions included (1) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds, (2) new ST-segment depression of ≥1 mm for the primary and ≥0.5 mm for the secondary definition, and (3) new coronary dissections >National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions.Results: Procedural MIs accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (2.7% versus 1.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98 [95% CI, 1.87-4.73]) and secondary (8.2% versus 2.0%; adjusted HR, 5.04 [95% CI, 3.64-6.97]) MI definitions. Type 1 MIs were less frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (3.40% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) and secondary (3.48% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI than after no MI using the primary (adjusted HR, 3.38 [95% CI, 2.03-5.61]; P<0.001) or secondary MI definition (adjusted HR, 3.52 [2.11-5.88]; P<0.001).Conclusions: In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and with the use of the secondary MI definition. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches—Chronic Kidney Disease) reported an initial invasive treatment strategy did not reduce the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) compared with a conservative treatment strategy in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, stable coronary disease, and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. The cumulative frequency of different MI type after randomization and subsequent prognosis have not been reported. Methods: MI classification was based on the Third Universal Definition for MI. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary MI definition used cTn (cardiac troponin); both definitions included elevated biomarker-only events with higher thresholds than nonprocedural MIs. The cumulative frequency of MI type according to treatment strategy was determined. The association of MI with subsequent all-cause death and new dialysis initiation was assessed by treating MI as a time-dependent covariate. Results: The 3-year incidence of type 1 or 2 MI with the primary MI definition was 11.2% in invasive treatment strategy and 13.6% in conservative treatment strategy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.42–1.02]). Procedural MIs were more frequent in invasive treatment strategy and accounted for 9.8% and 28.3% of all MIs with the primary and secondary MI definitions, respectively. Patients had an increased risk of all-cause death after type 1 MI (adjusted HR, 4.35 [95% CI, 2.73–6.93]) and after procedural MI with the primary (adjusted HR, 2.75 [95% CI, 0.99–7.60]) and secondary MI definitions (adjusted HR, 2.91 [95% CI, 1.73–4.88]). Dialysis initiation was increased after a type 1 MI (HR, 6.45 [95% CI, 2.59–16.08]) compared with patients without an MI. Conclusions: In ISCHEMIA-CKD, the invasive treatment strategy had higher rates of procedural MIs, particularly with the secondary MI definition, and lower rates of type 1 and 2 MIs. Procedural MIs, type 1 MIs, and type 2 MIs were associated with increased risk of subsequent death. Type 1 MI increased the risk of dialysis initiation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01985360. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial assigned patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to prompt coronary revascularization plus intensive medical therapy versus intensive medical therapy alone and reported no significant difference in mortality. Among patients selected for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, prompt coronary revascularization was associated with a significant reduction in death/myocardial infarction/stroke compared with intensive medical therapy. We hypothesized that clinical and angiographic risk stratification would affect the effectiveness of the treatments overall and within revascularization strata. Methods and Results--An angiographic risk score was developed from variables assessed at randomization; independent prognostic factors were myocardial jeopardy index, total number of coronary lesions, prior coronary revascularization, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The Framingham Risk Score for patients with coronary disease was used to summarize clinical risk. Cardiovascular event rates were compared by assigned treatment within high-risk and low-risk subgroups. Overall, no outcome differences between the intensive medical therapy and prompt coronary revascular-ization groups were seen in any risk stratum. The 5-year risk of death/myocardial infarction/stroke was 36.8% for intensive medical therapy compared with 24.8% for prompt coronary revascularization among the 381 coronary artery bypass graft surgery-selected patients in the highest angiographic risk tertile (/>=0.005); this treatment effect was amplified in patients with both high angiographic and high Framingham risk (47.3% intensive medical therapy versus 27.1% prompt coronary revascularization; P=0.010; hazard ratio=2.10; P=0.009). Treatment group differences were not significant in other clinical-angiographic risk groups within the coronary artery bypass graft surgery stratum, or in any subgroups within the percutaneous coronary intervention stratum. Conclusion--Among patients with diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease, a strategy of prompt coronary artery bypass graft surgery significantly reduces the rate of death/myocardial infarction Ml/stroke in those with extensive coronary artery disease or impaired left ventricular function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides information on a study which examined angiographic progression of lesions underlying symptom progression during contemporary optimal medical therapy (OMT). It highlights the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial undergone by patients, who were treated with OMT. A single index lesion was identified for each patient and was considered to be the lesion most likely to be responsible for the change in symptom status.

The article compares three distinct healthcare systems (HCS) in North America, namely Department of Veterans Affairs HCS (VA HCS), US non-VA HCS and Canadian system, and determines treatment difference in cardiovascular outcomes by HCS. It mentions that the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial has similar baseline demographics within each HCS. The article concludes that the addition of percutaneous coronary intervention to optimal medical therapy did not improve five-year survival among the 3 HCS.

Background: COURAGE compared outcomes in stable coronary patients randomized to optimal medical therapy plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy alone. Methods and Results: Angiographic data were analyzed by treatment arm, health care system (Veterans Administration, US non-Veterans Administration, Canada), and gender. Veterans Administration patients had higher prevalence of coronary artery bypass graft surgery and left ventricular ejection fraction < or =50%. Men had worse diameter stenosis of the most severe lesion, higher prevalence of prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and more 3-vessel disease that included a proximal left anterior descending lesion (P<0.0001 for all comparisons versus women). Failure to cross rate (3%) and visual angiographic success of stent procedures (97%) were similar to contemporary practice in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Quantitative angiographic PCI success was 93% (residual lesion <50% in-segment) and 82% (<20% in-stent), with only minor nonsignificant differences among health care systems and genders. Event rates were higher in patients with higher jeopardy scores and more severe vessel disease, but rates were similar irrespective of treatment strategy. Within the PCI plus optimal medical therapy arm, complete revascularization was associated with a trend toward lower rate of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Complete revascularization was similar between genders and among health care systems. Conclusions: PCI success and completeness of revascularization did not differ significantly by health care system or gender and were similar to contemporary practice. Angiographic burden of disease affected overall event rates but not response to an initial strategy of PCI plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflect on exercise myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) as a standard noninvasive approach in evaluating women symptomatic of coronary artery disease. They argue that prior studies in assessing coronary artery disease on women patients lacks a randomized controlled trials which compares the efficacy of MPI and exercise electrocardiography (SECG). Several studies on various noninvasive approaches in initial evaluation of women at risk for coronary artery disease are also discussed.

Background The severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) and of ischemia are evaluated to guide therapy, but their relative prognostic importance remains uncertain. Accordingly, we sought to clarify their association with long-term survival in the COURAGE trial (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation). Methods and Results Survival data from after the original trial period ended was obtained at 15 Veterans Affairs sites and 13 of 18 United States non-Veterans Affairs sites. Date of death was obtained from the Veterans Affairs system-wide Corporate Data Warehouse and the National Death Index. Of the original 2287 patients in COURAGE, 1370 (60%) had both stress perfusion imaging and quantitative coronary angiography available, with extended survival evaluated in 767 subjects. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline differences. There were 369 all-cause deaths during a median follow-up of 7.9 years (range, 0-15 years). The number of coronary arteries diseased predicted survival (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.43), whereas severity of ischemia did not (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22). Percutaneous coronary intervention did not offer a survival advantage over optimal medical therapy (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16) and there was no interaction between therapeutic strategy and number of coronary arteries diseased or severity of ischemia. In fully adjusted models, the number of coronary arteries diseased was not associated with increased mortality. Conclusions In univariate analysis, the number of coronary arteries diseased predicted long-term mortality, but severity of ischemia did not. Adjusted for baseline variables, neither assessment approach predicted mortality. Overall, there was no survival benefit from percutaneous coronary intervention in any subset defined by either angiographic or ischemic severity. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00007657. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The MINT trial raised concern for harm from a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia. Type 1 and type 2 MI are distinct pathophysiological entities that may respond differently to blood transfusion. This analysis sought to determine if the effects of transfusion varied among patients with a type 1 or a type 2 MI and anemia. We hypothesized that the liberal transfusion strategy would be of greater benefit in type 2 than in type 1 MI., Methods: We compared rates of death or MI at 30 days in patients with type 1 (n=1460) and type 2 (n=1955) MI and anemia who were randomly allocated to a restrictive (threshold of 7 to 8 g/dL) or a liberal (threshold of 10 g/dL) transfusion strategy., Results: The primary outcome of death or MI was observed in 16% of type 1 MI and 15.4% of type 2 MI patients. The rate of death or MI was higher in patients with type 1 MI randomized to a restrictive (18.2%) versus liberal (13.2%) transfusion strategy (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 - 1.67) with no difference observed between the restrictive (15.8% ) and liberal (15.1% ) transfusion strategies in patients with type 2 MI (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.85-1.29). The test for a differential effect of transfusion strategy by MI type was not statistically significant (P- interaction = 0.16)., Conclusions: The concern for harm with a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute MI and anemia raised in the MINT primary outcome manuscript may be more apparent in patients with type 1 than type 2 MI., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.

Background: Among patients with diabetes and chronic coronary disease, it is unclear if invasive management improves outcomes when added to medical therapy., Methods: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trials (ie, ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease) randomized chronic coronary disease patients to an invasive (medical therapy + angiography and revascularization if feasible) or a conservative approach (medical therapy alone with revascularization if medical therapy failed). Cohorts were combined after no trial-specific effects were observed. Diabetes was defined by history, hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%, or use of glucose-lowering medication. The primary outcome was all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). Heterogeneity of effect of invasive management on death or MI was evaluated using a Bayesian approach to protect against random high or low estimates of treatment effect for patients with versus without diabetes and for diabetes subgroups of clinical (female sex and insulin use) and anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function)., Results: Of 5900 participants with complete baseline data, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range, 57-70), 24% were female, and the median estimated glomerular filtration was 80 mL·min -1 ·1.73 -2 (interquartile range, 64-95). Among the 2553 (43%) of participants with diabetes, the median percent hemoglobin A1c was 7% (interquartile range, 7-8), and 30% were insulin-treated. Participants with diabetes had a 49% increased hazard of death or MI (hazard ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.31-1.70]; P <0.001). At median 3.1-year follow-up the adjusted event-free survival was 0.54 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.48-0.60) and 0.66 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.61-0.71) for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, respectively, with a 12% (95% bootstrapped CI, 4%-20%) absolute decrease in event-free survival among participants with diabetes. Female and male patients with insulin-treated diabetes had an adjusted event-free survival of 0.52 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56) and 0.49 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56), respectively. There was no difference in death or MI between strategies for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, or for clinical (female sex or insulin use) or anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function) of patients with diabetes., Conclusions: Despite higher risk for death or MI, chronic coronary disease patients with diabetes did not derive incremental benefit from routine invasive management compared with initial medical therapy alone. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Background: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy., Methods: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest)., Results: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61-1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57-1.21]; P =0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98-1.91]; P =0.04 for trend, P =NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar., Conclusions: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

This publication describes uniform definitions for cardiovascular and stroke outcomes developed by the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA established the Standardized Data Collection for Cardiovascular Trials Initiative in 2009 to simplify the design and conduct of clinical trials intended to support marketing applications. The writing committee recognizes that these definitions may be used in other types of clinical trials and clinical care processes where appropriate. Use of these definitions at the FDA has enhanced the ability to aggregate data within and across medical product development programs, conduct meta-analyses to evaluate cardiovascular safety, integrate data from multiple trials, and compare effectiveness of drugs and devices. Further study is needed to determine whether prospective data collection using these common definitions improves the design, conduct, and interpretability of the results of clinical trials., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Ranolazine is a novel antianginal shown in an exploratory analysis in patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic angina to be associated with a decline in hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)). We designed a prospective evaluation of the effect of ranolazine on hyperglycemia as part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled outcomes trial., Methods and Results: We compared HbA(1c) (percentage) and the time to onset of a > or =1% increase in HbA(1c) among 4918 patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to ranolazine or placebo in the MERLIN-TIMI 36 trial. Ranolazine significantly reduced HbA(1c) at 4 months compared with placebo (5.9% versus 6.2%; change from baseline, -0.30 versus -0.04; P<0.001). In patients with diabetes mellitus treated with ranolazine, HbA(1c) declined from 7.5 to 6.9 (change from baseline, -0.64; P<0.001). Diabetic patients were more likely to achieve an HbA(1c) <7% at 4 months with ranolazine compared with placebo (59% versus 49%; P<0.001) and were less likely to have a > or =1% increase in HbA(1c) (14.2% versus 20.6% at 1 year; hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.77; P<0.001). Moreover, ranolazine reduced recurrent ischemia in diabetic patients (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.93; P=0.008). Notably, in patients without diabetes mellitus at baseline, the incidence of new fasting glucose >110 mg/dL or HbA(1c) > or =6% was reduced by ranolazine (31.8% versus 41.2%; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.88; P=0.003). Reported hypoglycemia did not increase with ranolazine (P=NS)., Conclusions: Ranolazine significantly improved HbA(1c) and recurrent ischemia in patients with diabetes mellitus and reduced the incidence of increased HbA(1c) in those without evidence of previous hyperglycemia. The mechanism of this effect is under investigation.

Background: Extent and severity of myocardial ischemia are determinants of risk for patients with coronary artery disease, and ischemia reduction is an important therapeutic goal. The Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) nuclear substudy compared the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ischemia reduction added to optimal medical therapy (OMT) with the use of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (MPS)., Methods and Results: Of the 2287 COURAGE patients, 314 were enrolled in this substudy of serial rest/stress MPS performed before treatment and 6 to 18 months (mean=374+/-50 days) after randomization using paired exercise (n=84) or vasodilator stress (n=230). A blinded core laboratory analyzed quantitative MPS measures of percent ischemic myocardium. Moderate to severe ischemia encumbered > or = 10% myocardium. The primary end point was > or = 5% reduction in ischemic myocardium at follow-up. Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. At follow-up, the reduction in ischemic myocardium was greater with PCI+OMT (-2.7%; 95% confidence interval, -1.7%, -3.8%) than with OMT (-0.5%; 95% confidence interval, -1.6%, 0.6%; P<0.0001). More PCI+OMT patients exhibited significant ischemia reduction (33% versus 19%; P=0.0004), especially patients with moderate to severe pretreatment ischemia (78% versus 52%; P=0.007). Patients with ischemia reduction had lower unadjusted risk for death or myocardial infarction (P=0.037 [risk-adjusted P=0.26]), particularly if baseline ischemia was moderate to severe (P=0.001 [risk-adjusted P=0.08]). Death or myocardial infarction rates ranged from 0% to 39% for patients with no residual ischemia to > or = 10% residual ischemia on follow-up MPS (P=0.002 [risk-adjusted P=0.09])., Conclusions: In COURAGE patients who underwent serial MPS, adding PCI to OMT resulted in greater reduction in ischemia compared with OMT alone. Our findings suggest a treatment target of > or = 5% ischemia reduction with OMT with or without coronary revascularization.

All physicians increasingly will encounter patients who have implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for protection from ventricular arrhythmias. This advisory provides a concise summary relevant to the assessment and management of patients with ICDs, including those who present to primary care or emergency department physicians with symptoms suggesting arrhythmia or ICD malfunction and those who require cardiac or surgical procedures.

A group of relatively uncommon but important genetic cardiovascular diseases (GCVDs) are associated with increased risk for sudden cardiac death during exercise, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, long-QT syndrome, Marfan syndrome, and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. These conditions, characterized by diverse phenotypic expression and genetic substrates, account for a substantial proportion of unexpected and usually arrhythmia-based fatal events during adolescence and young adulthood. Guidelines are in place governing eligibility and disqualification criteria for competitive athletes with these GCVDs (eg, Bethesda Conference No. 26 and its update as Bethesda Conference No. 36 in 2005). However, similar systematic recommendations for the much larger population of patients with GCVD who are not trained athletes, but nevertheless wish to participate in any of a variety of recreational physical activities and sports, have not been available. The practicing clinician is frequently confronted with the dilemma of designing noncompetitive exercise programs for athletes with GCVD after disqualification from competition, as well as for those patients with such conditions who do not aspire to organized sports. Indeed, many asymptomatic (or mildly symptomatic) patients with GCVD desire a physically active lifestyle with participation in recreational and leisure-time activities to take advantage of the many documented benefits of exercise. However, to date, no reference document has been available for ascertaining which types of physical activity could be regarded as either prudent or inadvisable in these subgroups of patients. Therefore, given this clear and present need, this American Heart Association consensus document was constituted, based largely on the experience and insights of the expert panel, to offer recommendations governing recreational exercise for patients with known GCVDs.