Differences between familial and sporadic dilated cardiomyopathy: ESC EORP Cardiomyopathy & Myocarditis registry

Aims: Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a complex disease where genetics interplay with extrinsic factors. This study aims to compare the phenotype, management, and outcome of familial DCM (FDCM) and non-familial (sporadic) DCM (SDCM) across Europe. Methods and results: Patients with DCM that were enrolled in the prospective ESC EORP Cardiomyopathy & Myocarditis Registry were included. Baseline characteristics, genetic testing, genetic yield, and outcome were analysed comparing FDCM and SDCM; 1260 adult patients were studied (238 FDCM, 707 SDCM, and 315 not disclosed). Patients with FDCM were younger (P\ua0<\ua00.01), had less severe disease phenotype at presentation (P\ua0<\ua00.02), more favourable baseline cardiovascular risk profiles (P\ua0 64\ua00.007), and less medication use (P\ua0 64\ua00.042). Outcome at 1\ua0year was similar and predicted by NYHA class (HR 0.45; 95% CI [0.25\u20130.81]) and LVEF per % decrease (HR 1.05; 95% CI [1.02\u20131.08]. Throughout Europe, patients with FDCM received more genetic testing (47% vs. 8%, P\ua0<\ua00.01) and had higher genetic yield (55% vs. 22%, P\ua0<\ua00.01). Conclusions: We observed that FDCM and SDCM have significant differences at baseline but similar short-term prognosis. Whether modification of associated cardiovascular risk factors provide opportunities for treatment remains to be investigated. Our results also show a prevalent role of genetics in FDCM and a non-marginal yield in SDCM although genetic testing is largely neglected in SDCM. Limited genetic testing and heterogeneity in panels provides a scaffold for improvement of guideline adherence

Differences between familial and sporadic dilated cardiomyopathy: ESC EORP Cardiomyopathy & Myocarditis registry

Aims: Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a complex disease where genetics interplay with extrinsic factors. This study aims to compare the phenotype, management, and outcome of familial DCM (FDCM) and non-familial (sporadic) DCM (SDCM) across Europe. Methods and results: Patients with DCM that were enrolled in the prospective ESC EORP Cardiomyopathy & Myocarditis Registry were included. Baseline characteristics, genetic testing, genetic yield, and outcome were analysed comparing FDCM and SDCM; 1260 adult patients were studied (238 FDCM, 707 SDCM, and 315 not disclosed). Patients with FDCM were younger (P < 0.01), had less severe disease phenotype at presentation (P < 0.02), more favourable baseline cardiovascular risk profiles (P ≤ 0.007), and less medication use (P ≤ 0.042). Outcome at 1 year was similar and predicted by NYHA class (HR 0.45; 95% CI [0.25–0.81]) and LVEF per % decrease (HR 1.05; 95% CI [1.02–1.08]. Throughout Europe, patients with FDCM received more genetic testing (47% vs. 8%, P < 0.01) and had higher genetic yield (55% vs. 22%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: We observed that FDCM and SDCM have significant differences at baseline but similar short-term prognosis. Whether modification of associated cardiovascular risk factors provide opportunities for treatment remains to be investigated. Our results also show a prevalent role of genetics in FDCM and a non-marginal yield in SDCM although genetic testing is largely neglected in SDCM. Limited genetic testing and heterogeneity in panels provides a scaffold for improvement of guideline adherence