Contribution of NOTCH1 genetic variants to bicuspid aortic valve and other congenital lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) affects 1% of the general population. NOTCH1 was the first gene associated with BAV. The proportion of familial and sporadic BAV disease attributed to NOTCH1 mutations has not been estimated. AIM: The aim of our study was to provide an estimate of familial and sporadic BAV disease attributable to NOTCH1 mutations. METHODS: The population of our study consisted of participants of the University of Leicester Bicuspid aoRtic vAlVe gEnetic research-8 pedigrees with multiple affected family members and 381 sporadic patients. All subjects underwent NOTCH1 sequencing. A systematic literature search was performed in the NCBI PubMed database to identify publications reporting NOTCH1 sequencing in context of congenital heart disease. RESULTS: NOTCH1 sequencing in 36 subjects from 8 pedigrees identified one variant c.873C>G/p.Tyr291* meeting the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics criteria for pathogenicity. No pathogenic or likely pathogenic NOTCH1 variants were identified in 381 sporadic patients. Literature review identified 64 relevant publication reporting NOTCH1 sequencing in 528 pedigrees and 9449 sporadic subjects. After excluding families with syndromic disease pathogenic and likely pathogenic NOTCH1 variants were detected in 9/435 (2.1%; 95% CI: 0.7% to 3.4%) of pedigrees and between 0.05% (95% CI: 0.005% to 0.10%) and 0.08% (95% CI: 0.02% to 0.13%) of sporadic patients. Incomplete penetrance of definitely pathogenic NOTCH1 mutations was observed in almost half of reported pedigrees. CONCLUSIONS: Pathogenic and likely pathogenic NOTCH1 genetic variants explain 2% of familial and <0.1% of sporadic BAV disease and are more likely to associate with tetralogy of Fallot and hypoplastic left heart.

The impact of the right ventricular lead position on response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Left ventricular (LV) lead placement to the latest contracting area (concordant LV lead) is associated with better response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) compared to a discordant LV lead. However, the effect of the right ventricular (RV) lead site on CRT response is unclear. We investigated the relationship of the RV and LV lead positions on CRT response. METHODS: In 131 CRT patients, the LV lead was positioned preferentially in a lateral or posterolateral vein and the RV lead to either the RV septum (RVS, n = 55) or RV apex (RVA, n = 76). The latest site of contraction was determined with two-dimensional speckle tracking radial strain imaging and patients had a concordant LV lead position if pacing the latest segment, and discordant if not. Response was defined as ≥15% reduction in LV end systolic volume (LVESV) at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean reduction of LVESV at follow-up (RVS vs RVA: -23.3 ± 16% vs 22.1 ± 18%, P = 0.70) or rate of responders (58.2% vs 57.9%, P = 0.97) between the two groups. In patients with a concordant LV lead (n = 71), the response rate was significantly higher than those with a discordant lead (76.1% vs 36.7%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in outcomes in patients with a concordant or discordant LV lead according to the RV lead location. CONCLUSION: The extent of LV reverse remodeling following CRT is not related to the RV lead position, but is significantly higher in patients with a concordant LV lead.