conditions associated with sudden death (e.g., sudden unexplained death in epilepsy) to identify P/LP variants and correlated genotypes with postmortem phenotypes and 2) evaluated family history of decedents with high-risk phenotypes: premature CAD, aortic aneurysm and dissection, and cardiomyopathy [CM], arrhythmogenic right ventricular CM, hypertrophic CM, bicuspid aortic valve, and primary electrical.Results: Between 02/2011 and 01/2018, 856 pSCD (66% CV causes, 34% non-CV) were autopsied; 306 (36%) consented to genetic testing (mean age 62 years, 74% male).Families of 75 pSCDs (9%) with high-risk phenotypes were referred to genetic counselor; 18 consented.14 dominant or X-linked P/LP variants were found in 13 pSCDs (yield 4%).The majority of P/LP (8/14) cases were non-concordant with postmortem phenotype and only 5 had a P/LP variant concordant with cause of death (corrected yield 1.6%).The corrected yield was largely unchanged when restricting to autopsy confirmed CV causes (2%) or high-risk phenotypes (2.7%).Family screening of highrisk cases identified 50% (9/18) with a history of a related condition or sudden death despite negative testing in the proband.Conclusion: In this 7-year countywide study of unselected adult sudden deaths, the corrected yield of genetic testing concordant with autopsy phenotype was low (1.6%).The total burden of potentially heritable sudden death was enhanced by familial screening of cases with high risk phenotypes (50% by family history vs. 2.7% by genetic testing).These results evidence a phenotype-first approach is needed to guide genetic testing and familial screening in sudden deaths.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shabani et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: