Idiopathic ventricular fibrillation: is it a case for genetic testing?

Idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF) is a diagnosis of exclusion in sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) survivors. Although there are clear guidelines on the clinical work-up of SCA survivors, less than one in five patients receives a complete work-up. This increases the chances of erroneously labelling these patients as having IVF, while 10-20% of them have an inherited cardiac condition (ICC). Diagnoses of ICC increase over time due to (additional) deep phenotyping or as a result of spontaneous expression of ICC over time. As SCA survivors can also harbor (likely) pathogenic variants in cardiomyopathy-associated genes in the absence of a phenotype, or can have another ICC without a clear cardiac phenotype, the question arises as to whether genetic testing in this group should be routinely performed. Family history (mainly in the case of sudden death) can increase suspicion of an ICC in an SCA victim, but does not add great value when adults underwent a complete cardiological work-up. The diagnosis of ICC has treatment consequences not only for the patient but also for their family. Genetic diagnostic yield does not appear to increase with larger gene panels, but variants of unknown significance (VUS) do. Although VUS can be confusing, careful and critical segregation analysis in the family can be performed when discussed in a multidisciplinary team at a center of expertise with at least a cardiologist as well as a clinical and laboratory geneticist, thereby degrading or promoting VUS. When to introduce genetic testing in SCA survivors remains a matter of debate, but the combination of quick, deep phenotyping with additional genetic testing for the unidentifiable phenotypes, especially in the young, seems preferable.

Mitral annular disjunction in idiopathic ventricular fibrillation patients: just a bystander or a potential cause?

AIMS: Previously, we demonstrated that inferolateral mitral annular disjunction (MAD) is more prevalent in patients with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF) than in healthy controls. In the present study, we advanced the insights into the prevalence and ventricular arrhythmogenicity by inferolateral MAD in an even larger IVF cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective multi-centre study included 185 IVF patients [median age 39 (27, 52) years, 40% female]. Cardiac magnetic resonance images were analyzed for mitral valve and annular abnormalities and late gadolinium enhancement. Clinical characteristics were compared between patients with and without MAD. MAD in any of the 4 locations was present in 112 (61%) IVF patients and inferolateral MAD was identified in 24 (13%) IVF patients. Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) was found in 13 (7%) IVF patients. MVP was more prevalent in patients with inferolateral MAD compared with patients without inferolateral MAD (42 vs. 2%, P < 0.001). Pro-arrhythmic characteristics in terms of a high burden of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) were more prevalent in patients with inferolateral MAD compared to patients without inferolateral MAD (67 vs. 23%, P < 0.001 and 63 vs. 41%, P = 0.046, respectively). Appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy during follow-up was comparable for IVF patients with or without inferolateral MAD (13 vs. 18%, P = 0.579). CONCLUSION: A high prevalence of inferolateral MAD and MVP is a consistent finding in this large IVF cohort. The presence of inferolateral MAD is associated with a higher PVC burden and non-sustained VTs. Further research is needed to explain this potential interplay.