Back

Care Models for the Genetic Evaluation of Dilated Cardiomyopathy at Sites of the DCM Consortium.

Jordan, E.; Moscarello, T.; Khafagy, H.; Parker, P. K.; Grover, P.; Weinman, S.; Liu, J.; Nomo, A.; Barker, N.; Brown, E.; Berthold, A.; Chowns, J.; Christian, S.; Ekwurtzel, A.; Fan, J.; Kisling, M.; Ma, D.; Miller, E. M.; Sweeney, J.; Reyes, B.; Robles, N.; von Wald, L.; Flowers, W.; Hershberger, G.; Aragam, K. G.; Burke, M. A.; Diamond, J.; Drazner, M. H.; Ewald, G. A.; Gottlieb, S.; Haas, G. J.; Hofmeyer, M. R.; Huggins, G. S.; Jimenez, J.; Judge, D.; Katz, S. D.; Kawana, M.; Kransdorf, E.; Martin, C. M.; Minami, E.; Owens, A. T.; Shah, P.; Shenoy, C.; Shore, S.; Smart, F.; Stoller, D.; Ta

2026-04-07 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.04.06.26350275 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Clinical genetic evaluation for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is minimally implemented and models of care are not defined. To understand current genetics care for DCM, a systematic needs assessment was conducted. Methods: Principal Investigators (PIs) of the DCM Consortium convened at the Summer Scientific Symposium in July 2025. An electronic needs assessment was collected from the 24 PIs in advance to define current care models by evaluating which Heart Failure Society of America-recommended genetic evaluation components are conducted, by whom, and time required. Descriptive statistics were generated to characterize model features. Focus group discussions explored barriers and facilitators to implementing genetic services. Results: Four care models emerged from the PI responses: 1 -- Traditional-Synchronous (25%, n=6, requiring the most time per patient), 2 -- Traditional-Asynchronous (33%, n=8), 3 -- Externally Sourced (17%, n=4), and 4 -- Physician/Advanced Practice Provider Conducted (25%, n=6, requiring the least time per patient). All models used genetic testing, whereas other components were implemented variably or not at all. Models 1 (15.7{+/-}4.1) and 2 (15.4{+/-}3.0) were rated more acceptable than Model 4 (9.8{+/-}2.9, 1 vs 4: p=0.027; 2 vs 4, p=0.023). Notably, 88% of PIs used genetic information for treatment decisions, including ICD placement (83%; n=20) or cardiac transplant (63%; n=15). Major facilitator themes from focus group discussions included having a genetic counselor on the HF team and developing authoritative standards directing provision of DCM genetic services. Barrier themes included operational challenges, limited personnel, clinician under-recognition, need for new service delivery models, and billing/reimbursement. Conclusions: DCM genetic care models and components were highly variable across the 24 sites of the DCM Consortium, even though all sites discussed similar factors that enable or hinder implementing genetic services for DCM. Understanding the basis of practice model variability may provide insight to yield more scalable care approaches.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.4%
3
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.4%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
5
Circulation: Heart Failure
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
6
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.6%
7
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
8
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
10
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
11
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
13
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
14
Vaccine
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
16
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
17
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
34 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
18
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
19
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
20
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
21
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
22
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
23
Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
24
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
26
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
27
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
28
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology
38 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
29
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
30
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%