Myocarditis is an inflammatory disease of the heart that may occur because of infections, immune system activation, or exposure to drugs. The diagnosis of myocarditis has changed due to the introduction of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. We present an expert consensus document aimed to summarize the common terminology related to myocarditis meanwhile highlighting some areas of controversies and uncertainties and the unmet clinical needs. In fact, controversies persist regarding mechanisms that determine the transition from the initial trigger to myocardial inflammation and from acute myocardial damage to chronic ventricular dysfunction. It is still uncertain which viruses (besides enteroviruses) cause direct tissue damage, act as triggers for immune-mediated damage, or both. Regarding terminology, myocarditis can be characterized according to etiology, phase, and severity of the disease, predominant symptoms, and pathological findings. Clinically, acute myocarditis (AM) implies a short time elapsed from the onset of symptoms and diagnosis (generally <1 month). In contrast, chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathy indicates myocardial inflammation with established dilated cardiomyopathy or hypokinetic nondilated phenotype, which in the advanced stages evolves into fibrosis without detectable inflammation. Suggested diagnostic and treatment recommendations for AM and chronic inflammatory cardiomyopathy are mainly based on expert opinion given the lack of well-designed contemporary clinical studies in the field. We will provide a shared and practical approach to patient diagnosis and management, underlying differences between the European and US scientific statements on this topic. We explain the role of histology that defines subtypes of myocarditis and its prognostic and therapeutic implications.

Background-Among patients with implantable pacemakers and defibrillators, subclinical atrial fibrillation (SCAF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke; however, there is limited understanding of their temporal relationship. Methods and Results-The Asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke Evaluation in Pacemaker Patients and the AtrialFibrillation Reduction Atrial Pacing Trial (ASSERT) enrolled 2580 pacemaker and defibrillator patients aged ≥65 years with a history of hypertension but without a history of atrial fibrillation. Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators precisely logged the time and duration of all episodes of SCAF and recorded electrograms that were adjudicated by experts. We examined the temporal relationship between SCAF >6 minutes in duration and stroke or systemic embolism. Of 51 patients who experienced stroke or systemic embolism during follow-up, 26 (51%) had SCAF. In 18 patients (35%), SCAF was detected before stroke or systemic embolism. However, only 4 patients (8%) had SCAF detected within 30 days before stroke or systemic embolism, and only 1 of these 4 patients was experiencing SCAF at the time of the stroke. In the 14 patients with SCAF detected >30 days before stroke or systemic embolism, the most recent episode occurred at a median interval of 339 days (25th to 75th percentile, 211-619) earlier. Eight patients (16%) had SCAF detected only after their stroke, despite continuous monitoring for a median duration of 228 days (25th to 75th percentile, 202-719) before their event. Conclusions-Although SCAF is associated with an increased risk of stroke and embolism, very few patients had SCAF in the month before their event. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00256152.