Why the study?
Does monozygotic twin status increase the risk of atrial fibrillation compared to dizygotic twin status when the co-twin is diagnosed with AF?
Does monozygotic twin status increase the risk of atrial fibrillation compared to dizygotic twin status when the co-twin is diagnosed with AF?
Genetic factors play a substantial role in the risk of atrial fibrillation, with heritability estimated at 62% and a clinically relevant recurrence risk for co-twins.
Supports genetic predisposition to AF in twins; leaves open translation to risk prediction beyond twin pairs.
BACKGROUND: Heritability may play a role in nonfamilial atrial fibrillation (AF). We hypothesized that a monozygotic (MZ) twin whose co-twin was diagnosed with AF would have an increased risk of the disease compared with a dizygotic (DZ) twin in the same situation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A sample of 1137 same-sex twin pairs (356 MZ and 781 DZ pairs) in which one or both members were diagnosed with AF were identified in The Danish Twin Registry. Concordance rates were twice as high for MZ pairs than for DZ pairs regardless of sex (22.0% versus 11.6%, P<0.0001). In a Cox regression of event-free survival times, we compared the time span between occurrences of disease in MZ and DZ twins. The unaffected twin was included when his or her twin-sibling (the index twin) was diagnosed with AF. After adjustment for age at entry, MZ twins had a significantly shorter event-free survival time (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.0), thereby indicating a genetic component. Using biometric models, we estimated the heritability of AF to be 62% (55% to 68%), due to additive genetics. There were no significant differences across sexes. CONCLUSIONS: All the analyses of twin similarities in the present study indicate that genetic factors play a substantial role in the risk of AF for both sexes. The recurrence risk for co-twins (12% to 22%) is clinically relevant and suggests that co-twins of AF-affected twins belong to a high-risk group for AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Christophersen et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: