Timing of cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with cardiac laminopathies—External validation of the LMNA-risk ventricular tachyarrhythmia calculator
Christine Rootwelt‐Norberg, Alex Hørby Christensen, Eystein Skjølsvik, Monica Chivulescu, Christoffer Rasmus Vissing, Henning Bundgaard, Eivind W. Aabel, Martin P. Bogsrud, Nina E. Hasselberg, Øyvind Lie, Kristina H. Haugaa
Abstract
BackgroundLMNA genotype-positive patients have high risk of experiencing life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTAs). The LMNA-risk VTA calculator published in 2019 has not been externally validated.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to validate the LMNA-risk VTA calculator.MethodsWe included LMNA genotype-positive patients without previous VTAs from 2 large Scandinavian centers. Patients underwent electrocardiography, 24-hour Holter monitoring, and echocardiographic examinations at baseline and repeatedly during follow-up. Validation of the LMNA-risk VTA calculator was performed using Harrell’s C-statistic derived from multivariable Cox regression analysis.ResultsWe included 118 patients (age 37 years [IQR 27–49 years]; 39 [33%] probands; 65 [55%] women; 100 [85%] with non-missense LMNA variants). Twenty-three patients (19%) experienced VTA during 6.1 years (interquartile range 3.0–9.1 years) follow-up, resulting in 3.0% (95% confidence interval 2.0%–4.5%) yearly incidence rate. Atrioventricular block and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of VTAs, while nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, male sex, and non-missense LMNA variants were not. The LMNA-risk VTA calculator showed 83% sensitivity and 26% specificity for identifying patients with VTAs during the coming 5 years, and a Harrell’s C-statistic of 0.85, when applying ≥7% predicted 5-year VTA risk as threshold. The sensitivity increased to 100% when reevaluating risk at the time of last consultation before VTA. The calculator overestimated arrhythmic risk in patients with mild and moderate phenotype, particularly in men.ConclusionValidation of the LMNA-risk VTA calculator showed high sensitivity for subsequent VTAs, but overestimated arrhythmic risk when using ≥7% predicted 5-year risk as threshold. Frequent reevaluation of risk was necessary to maintain the sensitivity of the model. LMNA genotype-positive patients have high risk of experiencing life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTAs). The LMNA-risk VTA calculator published in 2019 has not been externally validated. The purpose of this study was to validate the LMNA-risk VTA calculator. We included LMNA genotype-positive patients without previous VTAs from 2 large Scandinavian centers. Patients underwent electrocardiography, 24-hour Holter monitoring, and echocardiographic examinations at baseline and repeatedly during follow-up. Validation of the LMNA-risk VTA calculator was performed using Harrell’s C-statistic derived from multivariable Cox regression analysis. We included 118 patients (age 37 years [IQR 27–49 years]; 39 [33%] probands; 65 [55%] women; 100 [85%] with non-missense LMNA variants). Twenty-three patients (19%) experienced VTA during 6.1 years (interquartile range 3.0–9.1 years) follow-up, resulting in 3.0% (95% confidence interval 2.0%–4.5%) yearly incidence rate. Atrioventricular block and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of VTAs, while nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, male sex, and non-missense LMNA variants were not. The LMNA-risk VTA calculator showed 83% sensitivity and 26% specificity for identifying patients with VTAs during the coming 5 years, and a Harrell’s C-statistic of 0.85, when applying ≥7% predicted 5-year VTA risk as threshold. The sensitivity increased to 100% when reevaluating risk at the time of last consultation before VTA. The calculator overestimated arrhythmic risk in patients with mild and moderate phenotype, particularly in men. Validation of the LMNA-risk VTA calculator showed high sensitivity for subsequent VTAs, but overestimated arrhythmic risk when using ≥7% predicted 5-year risk as threshold. Frequent reevaluation of risk was necessary to maintain the sensitivity of the model.