Kathy Crispell

Clinical profiles of four large pedigrees with familial dilated cardiomyopathy: Preliminary recommendations for clinical practice☆

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to characterize the clinical profile of familial dilated cardiomyopathy (FDC) in the families of four index patients initially diagnosed with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC) and to provide clinical practice recommendations for physicians dealing with these diseases. BACKGROUND Recent evidence indicates that approximately one-half of patients diagnosed with IDC will have FDC, a genetically transmissible disease, but the clinical profile of families screened for FDC in the U.S. has not been well documented. Additionally, recent ethical guidelines suggest increased responsibilities in caring for patients with newly found genetic cardiovascular disease. METHODS After identification of four families with FDC, we undertook clinical screening including medical history, physical examination, electrocardiogram and echocardiogram. Diagnostic criteria for FDC-affected status of asymptomatic family members was based on left ventricular enlargement (LVE). Subjects with confounding cardiovascular diagnoses or body mass indices >35 were excluded. RESULTS We identified 798 living members from the four FDC pedigrees, and screened 216 adults and 129 children (age <16 years). Twenty percent of family members were found to be affected with FDC; 82.8% of those affected were asymptomatic. All four pedigrees demonstrated autosomal dominant patterns of inheritance. The average left ventricular end-diastolic dimension was 61.4 mm for affected and 48.4 mm for unaffected subjects, with an average age of 38.3 years (+/- 14.6 years) for affected and 32.1 years for unaffected subjects. The age of onset for FDC varied considerably between and within families. Presenting symptoms when present were decompensated heart failure or sudden death. CONCLUSIONS We propose that with a new diagnosis of IDC, a thorough family history for FDC should be obtained, followed by echocardiographic-based screening of first-degree relatives for LVE, assuming their voluntary participation. If a diagnosis of FDC is established, we suggest further screening of first-degree relatives, and all subjects with FDC undergo medical treatment following established guidelines. Counseling of family members should emphasize the heritable nature of the disease, the age-dependent penetrance and the unpredictable clinical course.

Comparative responsiveness of short-form 12 and Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire in patients with heart failure☆

BACKGROUND The Short-Form 12 (SF-12) and Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ) are commonly used to measure quality of life (QOL) in heart failure outcomes research. Their comparative responsiveness, however, has not been documented. METHODS AND RESULTS A prospective cohort study was conducted among patients attending a university-based heart failure clinic between April 1997 and September 1998. All patients received comprehensive heart failure care management. QOL of patients was assessed by the SF-12 and LHFQ at baseline and 3 months. Of 87 patients completing follow-up, the mean change score was 10.1 for the LHFQ and 5.8 for the SF-12 (both Ps < .001). The change scores of the instruments were correlated (r = 0.61; P < .001). The SF-12 had a greater ability than the LHFQ to statistically detect change in physical health but was less sensitive to changes in mental health. The LHFQ performed better than the SF-12 in the ability to distinguish the differences in perceived global health transition. CONCLUSION The LHFQ is more responsive than the SF-12 to changes in QOL. The SF-12 should not be used alone to measure the changes in QOL of patients with heart failure.

Periodic rescreening is indicated for family members at risk of developing familial dilated cardiomyopathy

OBJECTIVES This study evaluated the role of clinical rescreening of family members at risk for familial dilated cardiomyopathy (FDC). BACKGROUND Familial dilated cardiomyopathy is a genetic cardiomyopathy that usually is transmitted in an autosomal dominant pattern and may underlie from one-quarter to one-half of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (IDC) diagnoses. Thus, FDC may present with advanced heart failure (HF) or sudden cardiac death (SCD). Because FDC may respond to medical intervention, we have previously recommended that screening of first-degree relatives (parents, siblings, children) of patients diagnosed with IDC be undertaken to rule out FDC, and that with a diagnosis of FDC in the kindred, unaffected but at-risk family members be rescreened every three to five years. METHODS; Follow-up screening (history, examination, electrocardiogram, echocardiography) of a large family with FDC was performed six years after initial screening. Of 68 family members who underwent rescreening, two (one with left ventricular enlargement only, one with a left bundle branch block) presented with advanced HF and SCD, respectively. Two additional subjects, asymptomatic at initial screening, were also affected with FDC at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Considerable vigilance for disease presentation and progression is indicated in at-risk members of a kindred with FDC, especially those with incipient FDC.

Familial dilated cardiomyopathy: echocardiographic diagnostic criteria for classification of family members as affected.

BACKGROUND Echocardiographic criteria for left ventricular enlargement (LVE) used to classify subjects as affected in families with familial dilated cardiomyopathy (FDC) have been inconsistent. A recent report from a large Framingham echocardiographic study provides an opportunity to improve the assignment of LVE and FDC in kindreds, principally with a dilated phenotype. The objective of this study is to evaluate an alternative diagnostic criteria for FDC based only on LVE with no measure of fractional shortening (FS). METHODS AND RESULTS We compared our proposed criteria for LVE and FDC with previous approaches by applying them to 166 adults derived from three large FDC pedigrees. Our proposed FDC diagnostic criteria are a sex- and height-specific method based only on LVE, without regard for FS, set as a 97.5% upper limit for left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) from the Framingham study. Other methods used to assign LVE were (1) a 95% upper limit for LVEDD by the Framingham study; (2) the method of Henry et al. (1980) based on age and body surface area (BSA); and (3) the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) method with a cut point of LVEDD greater than 2.7 cm/BSA. Three other commonly used diagnostic criteria for FDC were based on various LVE standards combined with an FS of 27% to 30%. For LVE, the Framingham-97.5% was the most stringent (21 of 134 subjects identified; 15.7%), the NHLBI standard the least stringent (57 of 161 subjects identified; 35.4%), and the Henry-112% method intermediate (44 of 161 subjects identified; 27.3%). More women were identified with the Framingham method (57.1%) versus the Henry-112% (40.9%). The Henry-112% and NHLBI methods identified 11.4% and 7.0% of subjects with body mass indices (BMIs) of 35 or greater, respectively. For FDC, our proposed FDC diagnostic criteria identified similar numbers of subjects (21 subjects) as the three other criteria (range, 22 to 27 subjects), but inconsistency was noted (54.2% to 66.7%), with kappa values from 0.49 to 0.55 resulting from different sensitivities to sex, LVE, FS, and BMI. CONCLUSION Our proposed FDC diagnostic criteria are stringent to assign FDC family members as affected compared with other commonly used criteria. The use of LVEDD alone may be preferable for FDC family screening, although further validation of this approach with phenotypic and genotypic data from other large FDC pedigrees is needed.