Gordon S Huggins1, Daniel D Kinnamon2,3, Garrie J Haas3,4, Elizabeth Jordan2,3, Mark Hofmeyer5, Evan Kransdorf6, Gregory A Ewald7, Alanna A Morris8, Anjali Owens9, Brian Lowes10, Douglas Stoller10, W H Wilson Tang11, Sonia Garg12, Barry H Trachtenberg13, Palak Shah14, Salpy V Pamboukian15, Nancy K Sweitzer16, Matthew T Wheeler17, Jane E Wilcox18, Stuart Katz19, Stephen Pan20, Javier Jimenez21, Keith D Aaronson22, Daniel P Fishbein23, Frank Smart24, Jessica Wang25, Stephen S Gottlieb26, Daniel P Judge27, Charles K Moore28, Jonathan O Mead2,3, Hanyu Ni2,3, Wylie Burke29, Ray E Hershberger2,3,4. 1. Cardiology Division, Tufts Medical Center and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 3. The Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 5. Medstar Research Institute, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC. 6. Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 7. Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri. 8. Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 9. Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease, Division of Cardiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 10. University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 11. Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 12. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 13. Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, J.C. Walter Jr. Transplant Center, Houston, Texas. 14. Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia. 15. University of Alabama, Birmingham. 16. Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona, Tucson. 17. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 18. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 19. New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. 20. Department of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center and New York Medical College, Valhalla. 21. Miami Cardiac & Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South, Miami, Florida. 22. University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor. 23. University of Washington, Seattle. 24. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans. 25. University of California Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles. 26. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. 27. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. 28. University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. 29. Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle.
Abstract
Importance: Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) aggregates in families, and early detection in at-risk family members can provide opportunity to initiate treatment prior to late-phase disease. Most studies have included only White patients, yet Black patients with DCM have higher risk of heart failure-related hospitalization and death. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of familial DCM among DCM probands and the age-specific cumulative risk of DCM in first-degree relatives across race and ethnicity groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: A family-based, cross-sectional study conducted by a multisite consortium of 25 US heart failure programs. Participants included patients with DCM (probands), defined as left ventricular systolic dysfunction and left ventricular enlargement after excluding usual clinical causes, and their first-degree relatives. Enrollment commenced June 7, 2016; proband and family member enrollment concluded March 15, 2020, and April 1, 2021, respectively. Exposures: The presence of DCM in a proband. Main Outcomes and Measures: Familial DCM defined by DCM in at least 1 first-degree relative; expanded familial DCM defined by the presence of DCM or either left ventricular enlargement or left ventricular systolic dysfunction without known cause in at least 1 first-degree relative. Results: The study enrolled 1220 probands (median age, 52.8 years [IQR, 42.4-61.8]; 43.8% female; 43.1% Black and 8.3% Hispanic) and screened 1693 first-degree relatives for DCM. A median of 28% (IQR, 0%-60%) of living first-degree relatives were screened per family. The crude prevalence of familial DCM among probands was 11.6% overall. The model-based estimate of the prevalence of familial DCM among probands at a typical US advanced heart failure program if all living first-degree relatives were screened was 29.7% (95% CI, 23.5% to 36.0%) overall. The estimated prevalence of familial DCM was higher in Black probands than in White probands (difference, 11.3% [95% CI, 1.9% to 20.8%]) but did not differ significantly between Hispanic probands and non-Hispanic probands (difference, -1.4% [95% CI, -15.9% to 13.1%]). The estimated prevalence of expanded familial DCM was 56.9% (95% CI, 50.8% to 63.0%) overall. Based on age-specific disease status at enrollment, estimated cumulative risks in first-degree relatives at a typical US advanced heart failure program reached 19% (95% CI, 13% to 24%) by age 80 years for DCM and 33% (95% CI, 27% to 40%) for expanded DCM inclusive of partial phenotypes. The DCM hazard was higher in first-degree relatives of non-Hispanic Black probands than non-Hispanic White probands (hazard ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.26 to 2.83]). Conclusions and Relevance: In a US cross-sectional study, there was substantial estimated prevalence of familial DCM among probands and modeled cumulative risk of DCM among their first-degree relatives. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03037632.
Importance: Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) aggregates in families, and early detection in at-risk family members can provide opportunity to initiate treatment prior to late-phase disease. Most studies have included only White patients, yet Black patients with DCM have higher risk of heart failure-related hospitalization and death. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of familial DCM among DCM probands and the age-specific cumulative risk of DCM in first-degree relatives across race and ethnicity groups. Design, Setting, and Participants: A family-based, cross-sectional study conducted by a multisite consortium of 25 US heart failure programs. Participants included patients with DCM (probands), defined as left ventricular systolic dysfunction and left ventricular enlargement after excluding usual clinical causes, and their first-degree relatives. Enrollment commenced June 7, 2016; proband and family member enrollment concluded March 15, 2020, and April 1, 2021, respectively. Exposures: The presence of DCM in a proband. Main Outcomes and Measures: Familial DCM defined by DCM in at least 1 first-degree relative; expanded familial DCM defined by the presence of DCM or either left ventricular enlargement or left ventricular systolic dysfunction without known cause in at least 1 first-degree relative. Results: The study enrolled 1220 probands (median age, 52.8 years [IQR, 42.4-61.8]; 43.8% female; 43.1% Black and 8.3% Hispanic) and screened 1693 first-degree relatives for DCM. A median of 28% (IQR, 0%-60%) of living first-degree relatives were screened per family. The crude prevalence of familial DCM among probands was 11.6% overall. The model-based estimate of the prevalence of familial DCM among probands at a typical US advanced heart failure program if all living first-degree relatives were screened was 29.7% (95% CI, 23.5% to 36.0%) overall. The estimated prevalence of familial DCM was higher in Black probands than in White probands (difference, 11.3% [95% CI, 1.9% to 20.8%]) but did not differ significantly between Hispanic probands and non-Hispanic probands (difference, -1.4% [95% CI, -15.9% to 13.1%]). The estimated prevalence of expanded familial DCM was 56.9% (95% CI, 50.8% to 63.0%) overall. Based on age-specific disease status at enrollment, estimated cumulative risks in first-degree relatives at a typical US advanced heart failure program reached 19% (95% CI, 13% to 24%) by age 80 years for DCM and 33% (95% CI, 27% to 40%) for expanded DCM inclusive of partial phenotypes. The DCM hazard was higher in first-degree relatives of non-Hispanic Black probands than non-Hispanic White probands (hazard ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.26 to 2.83]). Conclusions and Relevance: In a US cross-sectional study, there was substantial estimated prevalence of familial DCM among probands and modeled cumulative risk of DCM among their first-degree relatives. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03037632.
Authors: T A Manolio; K L Baughman; R Rodeheffer; T A Pearson; J D Bristow; V V Michels; W H Abelmann; W R Harlan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1992-06-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Baqar A Husaini; George A Mensah; Douglas Sawyer; Van A Cain; Zahid Samad; Pamela C Hull; Robert S Levine; Uchechukwu K A Sampson Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: R B Devereux; J N Bella; V Palmieri; A Oberman; D W Kitzman; P N Hopkins; D C Rao; D Morgan; M Paranicas; D Fishman; D K Arnett Journal: Hypertension Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Niall G Mahon; Ross T Murphy; Calum A MacRae; Alida L P Caforio; Perry M Elliott; William J McKenna Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kiran Musunuru; Ray E Hershberger; Sharlene M Day; N Jennifer Klinedinst; Andrew P Landstrom; Victoria N Parikh; Siddharth Prakash; Christopher Semsarian; Amy C Sturm Journal: Circ Genom Precis Med Date: 2020-07-23
Authors: J Lukas Laws; Megan C Lancaster; M Ben Shoemaker; William G Stevenson; Rebecca R Hung; Quinn Wells; D Marshall Brinkley; Sean Hughes; Katherine Anderson; Dan Roden; Lynne W Stevenson Journal: Circ Res Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 23.213
Authors: Wylie Burke; Shelly R Hovick; Elizabeth Jordan; Hanyu Ni; Daniel D Kinnamon; Ray E Hershberger Journal: Circ Genom Precis Med Date: 2022-05-10