4.0 Article

Genetic Testing in Pediatric Left Ventricular Noncompaction

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.117.001735

关键词

cardiomyopathies; genetic testing; infant; pediatrics; phenotype

资金

  1. Heart Institute at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
  2. Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training Grant Award [1UL1TR001425-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) can occur in isolation or can co-occur with a cardiomyopathy phenotype or cardiovascular malformation. The yield of cardiomyopathy gene panel testing in infants, children, and adolescents with a diagnosis of LVNC is unknown. By characterizing a pediatric population with LVNC, we sought to determine the yield of cardiomyopathy gene panel testing, distinguish the yield of testing for LVNC with or without co-occurring cardiac findings, and define additional factors influencing genetic testing yield. Methods and Results One hundred twenty-eight individuals diagnosed with LVNC at 21 years of age were identified, including 59% with idiopathic etiology, 32% with familial disease, and 9% with a syndromic or metabolic diagnosis. Overall, 75 individuals had either cardiomyopathy gene panel (n=65) or known variant testing (n=10). The yield of cardiomyopathy gene panel testing was 9%. The severity of LVNC by imaging criteria was not associated with positive genetic testing, co-occurring cardiac features, etiology, family history, or myocardial dysfunction. Individuals with isolated LVNC were significantly less likely to have a positive genetic testing result compared with those with LVNC and co-occurring cardiomyopathy (0% versus 12%, respectively; P<0.01). Conclusions Genetic testing should be considered in individuals with cardiomyopathy co-occurring with LVNC. These data do not suggest an indication for cardiomyopathy gene panel testing in individuals with isolated LVNC in the absence of a family history of cardiomyopathy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据