Community interventions did not improve autopsy rates (38.7% and 45.5% vs 49.0% control) or cardiogenetic evaluation of relatives (7.3% and 9.9% vs 8.8% control) after sudden death in the young.
Do community-based educational and communication interventions improve autopsy rates and cardiogenetic evaluation referrals after sudden death in the young?
Community-based interventions such as dedicated hotlines or educational meetings did not substantially improve the low rates of autopsy and cardiogenetic evaluation following sudden death in the young.
AIMS: Inherited cardiac diseases play an important role in sudden death (SD) in the young. Autopsy and cardiogenetic evaluation of relatives of young SD victims identifies relatives at risk. We studied the usual care after SD in the young aimed at identifying inherited cardiac disease, and assessed the efficacy of two interventions to improve this usual care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a community-based intervention study to increase autopsy rates of young SD victims aged 1-44 years and referral of their relatives to cardiogenetic clinics. In the Amsterdam study region, a 24/7 central telephone number and a website were available to inform general practitioners and coroners. In the Utrecht study region, they were informed by a letter and educational meetings. In two control regions usual care was monitored. Autopsy was performed in 169 of 390 registered SD cases (43.3%). Cardiogenetic evaluation of relatives was indicated in 296 of 390 cases (75.9%), but only 25 of 296 families (8.4%) attended a cardiogenetics clinic. Autopsy rates were 38.7% in the Amsterdam study region, 45.5% in the Utrecht study region, and 49.0% in the control regions. The proportion of families evaluated at cardiogenetics clinics in the Amsterdam study region, the Utrecht study region, and the control regions was 7.3, 9.9, and 8.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The autopsy rate in young SD cases in the Netherlands is low and few families undergo cardiogenetic evaluation to detect inherited cardiac diseases. Two different interventions did not improve this suboptimal situation substantially.
Werf et al. (Wed,) conducted a other in Sudden death in the young (n=390). Community-based interventions (telephone/website or educational meetings) vs. Usual care was evaluated on Autopsy rates and cardiogenetic evaluation of relatives. Community interventions did not improve autopsy rates (38.7% and 45.5% vs 49.0% control) or cardiogenetic evaluation of relatives (7.3% and 9.9% vs 8.8% control) after sudden death in the young.