Key result
Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia was performed in only 1.6% of post-MI patients in a cardiac rehabilitation program, despite a third meeting criteria for possible or probable FH.
Why the study?
Familial hypercholesterolemia is relatively prevalent after myocardial infarction and diagnosis could improve preventive treatment in family members, prompting an evaluation of FH diagnosis and genetic testing rates in cardiac rehabilitation.
What is the rate of familial hypercholesterolemia diagnosis and genetic testing in patients attending a cardiac rehabilitation program after myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=245)
What is the rate of familial hypercholesterolemia diagnosis and genetic testing in patients attending a cardiac rehabilitation program after myocardial infarction?
Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia is significantly underutilized in post-MI patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation, highlighting a missed opportunity for cascade screening and preventive treatment.
Low FH genetic testing rates persist in post-MI patients despite criteria; leaves open whether systematic screening improves cascade outcomes.
Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is relatively prevalent in myocardial infarction (MI) sufferers, and its diagnosis could improve preventive treatment in family members. We aim to analyze the diagnosis of FH and the rate of genetic testing in a prospective cohort of 245 patients submitted to our Cardiac Rehabilitation Program (CRP) after MI. Baseline characteristics were registered, and basal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was calculated after correction for lipid-lowering therapies (LLT) before or during admission. Simplified Dutch Lipid Clinic Network Scores (sDLCNS) were retrospectively calculated based on personal and familial history of premature cardiovascular disease and basal LDL-C levels. Mean age was 62.19 ± 13.93 years, and most patients were male (81.6%). Mean LDL-C before admission and basal LDL-C corrected for LLT were 131.79 ± 45.34 mg/dL and 162.87 ± 44.17 mg/dL, respectively. Patients in the cohort were retrospectively categorized in the “unlikely” (<3 points; n = 162, 66.1%), “possible” (3–5 points; n = 72, 29.4%) and “probable” (6–8 points; n = 11, 4.5%) sDLCNS categories. Genetic testing for FH was requested in four (1.6%) patients, and no clinically significant genetic variants were detected. Patients who underwent genetic testing depicted significantly higher basal LDL-C (233 ± 49.09 vs. 161.71 ± 43.25 mg/dL, p = 0.001). However, the rate of individuals undergoing genetic testing was negligible even in the “possible” (n = 2, 2.8%) and “probable” (n = 1, 9.1%) sDLCNS categories. In conclusion, genetic testing for FH in our CRP after MI is largely underutilized, even in patients with a “possible” or “probable” diagnosis based on sDLCNS criteria, which represent about a third of the cohort. Strategies to improve screening for FH should be prospectively implemented.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bertolín‐Boronat et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Myocardial Infarction and Familial Hypercholesterolemia (n=245). Familial hypercholesterolemia screening and genetic testing was evaluated on Rate of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia. Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia was performed in only 1.6% of post-MI patients in a cardiac rehabilitation program, despite a third meeting criteria for possible or probable FH.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: