4.7 Article

Yield of Serial Evaluation in At-Risk Family Members of Patients With ARVD/C

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages 293-301

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.044

Keywords

cardiomyopathy; electrocardiography; magnetic resonance imaging; progression; screening

Funding

  1. Alexandre Suerman Stipend
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [K23HL093350]
  3. Dr. Francis P. Chiaramonte Private Foundation
  4. St. Jude Medical Foundation
  5. Medtronic Inc.
  6. Bogle Foundation
  7. Healing Hearts Foundation
  8. Campanella family
  9. Patrick J. Harrison Family
  10. Peter French Memorial Foundation
  11. Dr. Satish, Rupal, and Robin Shah ARVD Fund at Johns Hopkins
  12. St. Jude Medical
  13. Wilmerding Endowments

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity of arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVD/C) complicate family screening. OBJECTIVES The objective of the present study was to determine the optimal approach to longitudinal follow-up regarding: 1) screening interval; and 2) testing strategy in at-risk relatives of ARVD/C patients. METHODS We included 117 relatives (45% male, age 33.3 +/- 16.3 years) from 64 families who were at risk of developing ARVD/C by virtue of their familial predisposition (72% mutation carriers [92% plakophilin-2]; 28% first-degree relatives of a mutation-negative proband). Subjects were evaluated by electrocardiography (ECG), Holter monitoring, signal-averaged ECG, and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Disease progression was defined as the development of a new criterion by the 2010 Task Force Criteria (not the Hamid criteria) at last follow-up that was absent at enrollment. RESULTS At first evaluation, 43 subjects (37%) fulfilled an ARVD/C diagnosis according to the 2010 Task Force Criteria. Among the remaining 74 subjects (63%), 11 of 37 (30%) with complete re-evaluation experienced disease progression during 4.1 +/- 2.3 years of follow-up. Electrical progression (n = 10 [27%], including by ECG [14%], Holter monitoring [11%], or signal-averaged ECG [14%]) was more frequently observed than structural progression (n 1 [3%] on CMR). All 5 patients (14%) with clinical ARVD/C diagnosis at last follow-up had an abnormal ECG or Holter monitor recording, and the only patient with an abnormal CMR already had an abnormal ECG at enrollment. CONCLUSIONS Over a mean follow-up of 4 years, our study showed that: 1) almost one-third of at-risk relatives have electrical progression; 2) structural progression is rare; and 3) electrical abnormalities precede detectable structural changes. This information could be valuable in determining family screening protocols. (C) 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available