Background Familial involvement is common in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and >40 genes have been implicated in causing disease. However, the role of genetic testing in clinical practice is not well defined. We examined the experience of clinical genetic testing in a diverse DCM population to characterize the prevalence and predictors of gene mutations. Methods and Results We studied 264 unrelated adult and pediatric DCM index patients referred to 1 reference lab for clinical genetic testing. Up to 10 genes were analyzed (MYH7, TNNT2, TNNI3, TPM1, MYBPC3, ACTC, LMNA, PLN, TAZ, and LDB3), and 70% of patients were tested for all genes. The mean age was 26.6 ± 21.3 years, and 52% had a family history of DCM. Rigorous criteria were used to classify DNA variants as clinically relevant (mutations), variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS), or presumed benign. Mutations were found in 17.4% of patients, commonly involving MYH7, LMNA, or TNNT2 (78%). An additional 10.6% of patients had VUS. Genetic testing was rarely positive in older patients without a family history of DCM. Conversely in pediatric patients, family history did not increase the sensitivity of genetic testing. Conclusions Using rigorous criteria for classifying DNA variants, mutations were identified in 17% of a diverse group of DCM index patients referred for clinical genetic testing. The low sensitivity of genetic testing in DCM reflects limitations in both current methodology and knowledge of DCM-associated genes. However, if mutations are identified, genetic testing can help guide family management.

To date, several disease-related mutations in NKX2-5, a cardiac-specific homeobox gene, have been documented in patients with a variety of congenital heart diseases (CHDs). The most commonly reported phenotypes are secundum atrial septal defect (ASD) and atrioventricular conduction disease (AVCD). Reports of sudden cardiac death (SCD) have been attributed to progressive conduction disease preventable with pacemaker therapy. A retrospective chart review of individuals from three generations of a family with a novel NKX2-5 mutation associated with CHD, ventricular arrhythmias, and SCD despite pacemaker therapy was conducted. The review documented NKX2-5 Gln181His missense mutation in 11 phenotypically affected members of a single family with a strong family history of SCD, CHD, and AVCD. Before genotyping, four family members died suddenly, two despite pacemaker therapy. The ages at SCD were respectively 23, 29, 44, and 45 years. Observed phenotypic characteristics of genotype-positive patients included ASD, ventricular septal defect, aortic coarctation, tricuspid atresia, supraventricular tachycardia, progressive AVCD, and ventricular tachycardia documented on implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) recording. The age at presentation ranged from 5 months to 44 years, and AVCD was seen as early as infancy. Four phenotypically unaffected family members tested negative for the mutation. The findings of this review strongly suggest a new association of this NKX2-5 mutation with SCD from ventricular arrhythmia. This observation has significant implications for the choice of therapy for affected individuals, specifically the use of ICDs, and broadens the observed phenotypic spectrum of NKX2-5 mutations.

Inherited cardiovascular (CV) conditions are common, and comprehensive care of affected families often involves genetic testing. When the clinical presentations of these conditions overlap, genetic testing may clarify diagnoses, etiologies, and treatments in symptomatic individuals and facilitate the identification of asymptomatic, at-risk relatives, allowing for often life-saving preventative care. Although some professional society guidelines on inherited cardiac conditions include genetic testing recommendations, they quickly become outdated owing to the rapid expansion and use of such testing. Currently, these guidelines primarily discuss the benefits of targeted genetic testing for identifying at-risk relatives. Although most insurance policies acknowledge the benefit and the necessity of this testing, many exclude coverage for testing altogether or are vague about coverage for testing in probands, which is imperative if clinicians are to have the best chance of accurately identifying pathogenic variant(s) in a family. In response to uncertainties about coverage, many commercial CV genetic testing laboratories have shouldered the burden of working directly with commercial payers and protecting patients/institutions from out-of-pocket costs. As a result, many clinicians are unaware that payer coverage policies may not match professional recommendations for CV genetic testing. This conundrum has left patients, clinicians, payers, and laboratories at an impasse when determining the best path forward for meaningful and sustainable testing. Herein, we discuss the need for all involved parties to recognize their common goals in this process, which should motivate collaboration in changing existing frameworks and creating more sustainable access to genetic information for families with inherited CV conditions.