Search

Introduction: Nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy (NDLVC) is a newly defined category of cardiomyopathy. We sought to evaluate and compare the phenotype of NDLVC with DCM using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and to investigate the prognostic significance of these conditions. Methods: One hundred and fifty patients suspected of having cardiomyopathy referred for CMR were recruited. We considered 3 groups; Group 1: NDLVC‐reduced EF, (NDLVC‐REF), LVEF ≤ 40%, Group 2: NDLVC‐mildly reduced EF(NDLVC‐MREF), 40 < LVEF < 50, Group 3: Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). All selected patients were followed up for a median of 24 months to determine the composite cardiac endpoint consisting of mortality and/or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons (composite cardiac event (CCE)) as the primary endpoint. Results: The mean age (SD) was 42.6 (13.7) years (range: 18–77 years). There was no association between the presence of myocardial LGE and the development of atrial and/or ventricular arrhythmias. Atrial fibrillation was most common in the NDLVC groups during the follow‐up period. Myocardial late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) was also more pronounced in the DCM group. Most patients in the NDLVC groups had no LGE. LGE in the midwall was the most common LGE pattern in all three groups and the septal wall was the most commonly affected area of the LV. There was no significant difference between the CMR findings of patients with and without CCE in each subgroup. However, the presence of myocardial replacement fibrosis was higher in patients with a CCE in total study population, (n = 144, 68% versus 32%, p = 0.03), but the difference was not significant in subgroup analyzes. Conclusion: NDLVC has a relatively good prognosis in recent times. The consideration of NDLVC in a spectrum with DCM can be reasonable. However, the prognostic risk factors need to be investigated in more detail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective(s): Remote organ injury is a phenomenon that could happen following myocardial infarction (MI). We evaluated the potency of menstrual blood stromal (stem) cells (MenSCs) and bone marrow stem cells (BMSCs) to alleviate remote organ injuries following MI in rats. Materials and Methods: 2 × 106 MenSCs or BMSCs were administrated seven days after MI induction via the tail vein. Four weeks after cell therapy, activities of aspartate aminotransferase (AST), urea, creatinine, and Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN) were evaluated. The level of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-6 were determined by ELISA assay. The expression of Nuclear Factor-κB (NF-κB) was evaluated by immunohistochemical staining. Apoptosis activity and tissue damage were also determined by TUNEL and H&E staining, respectively. Results: MenSCs and BMSCs administration caused a significant reduction in AST, urea, and BUN levels compared with the MI group. In addition, systemic injection of MenSCs significantly decreased the IL-1β level compared with BMSCs and MI groups (P<0.05 and P<0.01 respectively). Apoptosis in injured kidneys was noticeably diminished in MenSCs-treated rats compared with BMSCs administrated and MI groups (P<0.05 and P<0.05, respectively). In hepatic tissue, limited numbers of TUNEL-positive cells were detected in all groups. Interestingly, MenSCs therapy evoked inhibition of NF-κB in the kidney strikingly. Although, no significant NF-κB expression was observed in hepatic tissue in any group (P>0.05). Conclusion: MenSCs are probably more protective than BMSCs on remote organ injuries following MI via decreasing cell death and immunoregulatory properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (ACC/AHA/HFSA) and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) both provide evidence‐based guides for the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure (HF). In this review, we aimed to compare recommendations suggested by these guidelines highlighting the differences and latest evidence mentioned in each of the guidelines. While the staging of HF depends on left ventricular ejection fraction, the Universal Definition of HF, suggested in 2021, is described in 2022 ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines. Both guidelines recommend invasive and non‐invasive tests to diagnose. Despite being identical in the backbone, some differences exist in medical therapy and devices, which can be partially attributed to the recent trials published that are presented in the American guidelines. The recommendation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator for prevention in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, made by ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines, is among the bold differences. It seems that ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines emphasize the quality of life, cost‐effectiveness, and optimization of care given to patients. On the other hand, the ESC guidelines provide recommendations for certain comorbidities. This comparison can guide clinicians in choosing the proper approach for their own settings and the writing committees in addressing the differences in order to have better consistency in future guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]