The authors of this paper highlight the importance of evaluation of associated cardiac and extracardiac features to make a correct diagnosis and their implications in prognosis and treatment (summarized in a very valuable table 1 and 3).
This is a very interesting exercise of trying to organize a field of the cardiology which is getting more and more complex, by categorizing patients with cardiomyopathies following an scheme that has been successful in other fields of medicine. As Prof. Elliott states in the editorial, there are some issues that makes cardiomyopathies different to cancer and some limitations in the proposed MOGE(S) classification system before this reach the clinical scenario.
TMN is a system which was implemented in order to stratify risk and hence to guide treatment, which is not the case of MOGE(S). MOGE(S) is a classification which aims to give a diagnosis to all individuals from early phases to mixed phenotypes, from unknown cause to deep genetic diagnosis. Probably the main achievement of the MOGE(S) classification is to standardize the diagnosis and to easy comparisons from centers to centers by unifying the “language”.
This new cardiomyopathy “barcode” would eventually be simple and useful for classification of most patients with hypertrophic and dilated cardiomyopathies, or for classification of families, but it is likely to fail in the attempt to extract the essence from patients with complex diagnosis, in particular in Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy. Implementation of the MOGE(S) system is expected to depend on very specialized cardiac inherited units. This opens the discussion on whether cardiogenetics is getting complex enough to be a distinct cardiac specialty.
Conclusion:
This paper it is a good starting point for an interesting debate. The proposed classification needs to pass the feasibility test of the real-life clinical scenario. As the authors state in the text, there will be a monitoring phase and other options will be considered and new diseases could be incorporated.