Concluding Remarks

Abstract

Up to a few decades ago, the medical community was uncertain, vague and confused about cardiomyopathies (CMPs). By definition, the etiology was unknown [1] and the diagnostic approach was essentially based on the clinical phenotype. The classifications of these diseases, developed to provide order to a complex and rather confused matter, were appropriately considered to be a provisional “bridge between ignorance and knowledge” [2] that would change with the progress of science. The majority of CMP classifications [1, 3, 4] were based (and continue to be based) on the phenotype. However, the classical “hypertrophic-dilated-restrictive” approach has some limitations, considering that in this classification there is a mix of diagnostic criteria: anatomic-morphologic (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [HCM], dilated cardiomyopathy [DCM]), functional (restrictive cardiomyopathy [RCM]) and anatomic-functional (arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy [ARVC]). In 2006 [5], the American Heart Association suggested an approach that was based mainly on etiology (genetic, mixed, acquired) and considered two groups: primary CMPs (the disease is solely or predominantly localized in the heart) and secondary CMPs (heart involvement is part of a multi-organ disorder).