Why the study?
Mechanical dispersion predicts arrhythmic risk in cardiomyopathies, but limited data exist comparing it across different genetic subtypes.
Does mechanical dispersion differ between DSP/FLNC and TTN mutation carriers, and does it predict ventricular arrhythmias in genetic cardiomyopathy?
Population
48 patients with genetic cardiomyopathy harboring pathogenic or likely pathogenic DSP, FLNC, or TTN variants
Comparison
DSP/FLNC mutations vs TTN mutations
Design
Prospective cohort study
Key result
Mechanical dispersion did not significantly differ between DSP/FLNC and TTN mutation carriers (66.0 vs 70.8 ms; p=0.468), but was a strong predictor of ventricular arrhythmias (AUC 0.728).
Authors
Loading...
May support arrhythmia risk stratification in genetic cardiomyopathy; extends observational data but leaves open prospective validation.
Cohort (n=48)
No
Does mechanical dispersion differ between DSP/FLNC and TTN mutation carriers, and does it predict ventricular arrhythmias in genetic cardiomyopathy?
Absolute Event Rate: 66% vs 70.8%
p-value: p=0.468
Mechanical dispersion is a strong, non-invasive predictor of ventricular arrhythmias in genetic cardiomyopathies that outperforms LVEF and GLS, regardless of the underlying genotype.
Apostu et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Genetic cardiomyopathy (dilated cardiomyopathy) (n=48). DSP/FLNC mutations vs. TTN mutations was evaluated on Mechanical dispersion (MD) (p=0.468). Mechanical dispersion did not significantly differ between DSP/FLNC and TTN mutation carriers (66.0 vs 70.8 ms; p=0.468), but was a strong predictor of ventricular arrhythmias (AUC 0.728).