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
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.