Malignant Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/Cardiomyopathy with a normal 12-lead electrocardiogram: A rare but underrecognized clinical entity
“…Since baseline characteristics and endpoints were similar between subjects with and without repeat evaluation, a significant selection bias seems unlikely. The presence of multiple pathogenic mutations in ARVD/C probands has been previously described (20). Although only 1 pathogenic mutation has been identified in all mutation-positive families of this study, presence of modifier genes could be responsible for disease progression in some family members.…”
Background
Incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity of arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVD/C) complicate family screening.
Objectives
To determine the optimal approach to longitudinal follow-up regarding (1) screening interval and (2) testing strategy in at-risk relatives of ARVD/C patients.
Methods
We included 117 relatives (45% male, 33.3±16.3 years) from 64 families who were at risk of developing ARVD/C by virtue of their familial predisposition (72% mutation carriers [92% Plakophilin-2]; 28% first-degree relatives of a mutation-negative proband). Subjects were evaluated using ECG, Holter monitoring, signal-averaged ECG, and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Disease progression was defined as the development of a new criterion by the 2010 Task Force criteria (TFC; not “Hamid criteria”) at last follow-up, which was absent at enrollment.
Results
At first evaluation, 43 (37%) subjects fulfilled ARVD/C diagnosis according to the 2010 TFC. Among the remaining 74 (63%) individuals, 11/37 (30%) subjects with complete reevaluation experienced disease progression during 4.1±2.3 years of follow-up. Electrical progression (n=10 [27%] including ECG 14%, Holter monitoring 11%, signal-averaged ECG 14%) was more frequently observed than structural progression (n=1 [3%] on CMR). All 5/37 (14%) patients with clinical ARVD/C diagnosis at last follow-up had an abnormal ECG or Holter monitor, and the only patient with an abnormal CMR already had an abnormal ECG at enrollment.
Conclusion
Over a mean follow-up of 4 years, our study showed that (1) almost one-third of at-risk relatives have electrical progression; (2) structural progression is rare; and (3) electrical abnormalities precede detectable structural changes. This information could be valuable in determining family screening protocols.
“…Since baseline characteristics and endpoints were similar between subjects with and without repeat evaluation, a significant selection bias seems unlikely. The presence of multiple pathogenic mutations in ARVD/C probands has been previously described (20). Although only 1 pathogenic mutation has been identified in all mutation-positive families of this study, presence of modifier genes could be responsible for disease progression in some family members.…”
Background
Incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity of arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVD/C) complicate family screening.
Objectives
To determine the optimal approach to longitudinal follow-up regarding (1) screening interval and (2) testing strategy in at-risk relatives of ARVD/C patients.
Methods
We included 117 relatives (45% male, 33.3±16.3 years) from 64 families who were at risk of developing ARVD/C by virtue of their familial predisposition (72% mutation carriers [92% Plakophilin-2]; 28% first-degree relatives of a mutation-negative proband). Subjects were evaluated using ECG, Holter monitoring, signal-averaged ECG, and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Disease progression was defined as the development of a new criterion by the 2010 Task Force criteria (TFC; not “Hamid criteria”) at last follow-up, which was absent at enrollment.
Results
At first evaluation, 43 (37%) subjects fulfilled ARVD/C diagnosis according to the 2010 TFC. Among the remaining 74 (63%) individuals, 11/37 (30%) subjects with complete reevaluation experienced disease progression during 4.1±2.3 years of follow-up. Electrical progression (n=10 [27%] including ECG 14%, Holter monitoring 11%, signal-averaged ECG 14%) was more frequently observed than structural progression (n=1 [3%] on CMR). All 5/37 (14%) patients with clinical ARVD/C diagnosis at last follow-up had an abnormal ECG or Holter monitor, and the only patient with an abnormal CMR already had an abnormal ECG at enrollment.
Conclusion
Over a mean follow-up of 4 years, our study showed that (1) almost one-third of at-risk relatives have electrical progression; (2) structural progression is rare; and (3) electrical abnormalities precede detectable structural changes. This information could be valuable in determining family screening protocols.
“…Furthermore, ECG criteria in the lead aVR [2] were additionally positive in both ECGs. According to Te Riele et al [3] 14% of patients with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy have no specific ECG findings. …”
Section: Contents Lists Available At Sciencedirectmentioning
“…There is no consensus on the frequency of serial re-assessment of subjects suspected for ARVD/C, but yearly assessment is reasonable. Documented electrical abnormalities, such as abnormal ECG and/or Holter, may precede structural changes during a 4-year follow-up in a cohort of ARVD/C relatives (te Riele et al, 2013). Complex ventricular arrhythmia may be observed even when the surface ECG is normal (te Riele et al, 2014).…”
Section: Episodes Of Vt With Right Ventricular Origin Pattern or Morementioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.