Key result
Ambulatory ECG abnormalities predict ~9-fold higher malignant ventricular event risk exclusively in genetic DCM.
Why the study?
To evaluate the prognostic significance and prevalence of arrhythmias and conduction disorders on ambulatory ECG in recently diagnosed genetic versus non-genetic DCM, and their predictive value for malignant ventricular adverse events.
Does ambulatory ECG monitoring predict malignant ventricular adverse events differently in genetic versus non-genetic dilated cardiomyopathy?
Cohort (n=354)
Yes
Does ambulatory ECG monitoring predict malignant ventricular adverse events differently in genetic versus non-genetic dilated cardiomyopathy?
Hazard Ratio: 9.02 (95% CI 1.22–66.7)
p-value: p=0.031
Ambulatory ECG monitoring provides significant prognostic value for predicting malignant ventricular arrhythmias specifically in patients with genetic dilated cardiomyopathy, outperforming its predictive utility in non-genetic cases.
Ambulatory ECG may refine MVAE risk stratification in genetic DCM; leaves open differential utility versus non-genetic cases.
AIMS: Evaluate the prognostic significance of arrhythmias and conduction disorders on ambulatory ECG in recently diagnosed genetic vs. non-genetic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of abnormalities on ambulatory ECG monitoring between genetic and non-genetic DCM patients and evaluate the predictive value for malignant ventricular adverse events (MVAEs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical and ambulatory ECG data were collected from 354 genotyped DCM probands, with a median follow-up of 8 years (IQR: 5-9 years). The malignant ventricular adverse event was defined as ventricular fibrillation, sustained ventricular tachycardia, anti-tachy pacing, appropriate device therapy, or sudden cardiac death. C-statistics assessed the predictive performance of the regression models. In total, 123 (35%) patients carried a (likely) pathogenic variant. Abnormalities on ambulatory ECG were more frequent in genetic DCM patients (80%) compared to non-genetic DCM (67%; P = 0.013). Permanent atrial fibrillation (perAF), paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (parox-SVT), and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) were more frequent in genetic DCM patients (P = 0.041, <0.001, and <0.001). Structural cardiac parameters showed minimal group differences. Using Cox proportional hazard analyses to predict MVAE, ambulatory ECG variables (perAF, AV-block, NSVT, >500 premature ventricular complexes (PVCs)/24 h) had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.768 in genetic and 0.628 in non-genetic DCM patients (P = 0.044). The premature ventricular complex burden was only predictive for MVAE in genetic DCM. Adding clinical variables provided little incremental predictive value for genetic vs. non-genetic DCM (AUC Δ+0.004 vs. Δ+0.150, respectively). CONCLUSION: Ambulatory ECG monitoring abnormalities are prevalent in genetic DCM patients. In contrast to non-genetic DCM patients, ambulatory ECG parameters have an important predictive value to determine the risk of MVAE in genetic DCM patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Venner et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Dilated cardiomyopathy (n=354). Ambulatory ECG abnormalities vs. Absence of ambulatory ECG abnormalities was evaluated on Malignant ventricular adverse events (MVAE) in genetic DCM patients (HR 9.02, 95% CI 1.22-66.7, p=0.031). In patients with genetic dilated cardiomyopathy, the presence of any ambulatory ECG abnormality significantly predicted malignant ventricular adverse events (HR 9.02), a predictive value not observed in non-genetic DCM.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: