Schlesinger, Reid

Background: Pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in the RBM20-encoded RNA-binding protein motif 20 splicing factor result in a penetrant form of arrhythmogenic/dilated cardiomyopathy (ACM/DCM) characterized by ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and early-onset heart failure. The role of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in characterizing RBM20 cardiomyopathy and guiding risk stratification remains inadequately defined. Objectives: To characterize CMR phenotypes in patients with RBM20 cardiomyopathy and explore associations between variant type, CMR phenotype, and VA risk. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 1,061 genotype-positive ACM/DCM patients was used to identify individuals with P/LP arginine/serine-rich domain-localizing missense (RBM20msv) or truncating (RBM20tv) variants in RBM20. Clinical outcomes, including major VA (MVA; sudden cardiac arrest, sustained ventricular arrhythmia, or appropriate ICD therapy) events, were compared between RBM20msv and RBM20tv-positive patients. When available, CMR findings were also analyzed by variant type and correlated with MVA events. Results: Overall, 64 of 1,061 (6%) ACM/DCM patients possessed an RBM20msv or RBM20tv. Of those, 35 (mean age 38±16 years, 54% female, 94% Caucasian) underwent CMR. Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) was present in 9/35 (26%), typically in a mid-myocardial septal or inferolateral pattern. Left ventricular (LV) noncompaction was noted in 9/35 (26%). Within the CMR subgroup, RBM20msv accounted for 29/35 (83%) of cases, while RBM20tv was observed in 6/35 (17%). No significant difference in LV ejection fraction (36±7% vs. 42±13%, p=0.358), LV end-diastolic volume index (100±32 mL/m2 vs. 118±44 mL/m2, p=0.342), or LGE prevalence (1/6 [17%] vs. 8/29 [28%], p=1.000) was observed between RBM20tv- and RBM20msv-positive patients. However, MVA events were more frequent among RBM20tv-positive patients in the CMR subset (3/6 [50%] vs. 2/29 [7%], p=0.026) and the overall cohort (7/15 [47%] vs. 6/49 [12%], p=0.008). Conclusions: RBM20tv-positive patients experienced a higher rate of MVA events despite similar rates of LGE and structural remodeling compared to those with RBM20msv. Future studies are needed to determine whether mechanisms independent of fibrosis/re-entry drive arrhythmogenesis in RBM20tv-positive patients and to establish if RBM20tv represents an independent risk factor for MVA events that merits incorporation into genotype-specific risk stratification strategies.

Abstract Background AI-enhanced electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) is a cost-effective tool for left ventricular dysfunction screening. However, its cost-effectiveness for other forms of structural heart disease (SHD) is unknown. While AI-ECG is inexpensive, the relatively low positive predictive value (PPV) of many models can lead to high costs from unnecessary follow-up tests like transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Therefore, strategies to improve the yield of AI-ECG-based screening are needed. Purpose To evaluate the cost savings of a stepwise approach to SHD screening using AI-ECG followed by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) compared to AI-ECG alone. Methods 286 adult outpatients undergoing AI-ECG were randomly selected to undergo same-day POCUS. All participants were required to have a recent TTE, our gold standard for SHD diagnosis, for comparison purposes. We evaluated four SHDs: aortic stenosis, cardiac amyloidosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and left ventricular dysfunction (defined as left ventricular ejection fraction <50%). The costs of AI-ECG ($75/test) and TTE ($1,305/test) were sourced from Healthcare Bluebook, while the cost of POCUS ($100/test) was independently estimated. We compared the costs of screening with AI-ECG alone to stepwise screening with AI-ECG followed by POCUS. Costs were analyzed for two paradigms: screening for all forms of SHD in parallel and screening for each SHD individually. Results AI-ECG alone identified potential SHD in 125 out of 286 patients. When compared to TTE, only 39 out of 125 were true positives (31% PPV). Among the AI-ECG-positive patients, POCUS demonstrated findings of SHD in 52 out of 125 cases. When compared to TTE, this stepwise approach yielded 32 true positives and 20 false positives (62% PPV). In the parallel screening paradigm, the cost per patient diagnosed with SHD was $4,733 with AI-ECG alone, which decreased to $3,182 with stepwise screening (33% cost savings). For the individual SHD screening paradigm, cost reductions were as follows: aortic stenosis ($18,724 to $6,315, 66% savings), cardiac amyloidosis ($21,023 to $12,230, 42% savings), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy ($9,883 to $6,175, 38% savings), and left ventricular dysfunction ($4,019 to $3,582, 11% savings). Conclusions Stepwise SDH screening with AI-ECG followed by POCUS markedly reduces costs compared to AI-ECG alone. The greatest cost savings for individual SHD screening were observed for aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis, conditions where AI-ECG models have lower PPVs. Parallel screening for multiple SHDs is also less costly than screening for any individual SHD alone. Therefore, a parallel screening approach may maximize SHD detection while minimizing screening costs. Stepwise Screening Approach for SHD SDH Screening Costs

Background: AI-ECG is a cost-effective tool for left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) screening. However, its cost-effectiveness for other forms of structural heart disease (SHD) is unknown. While AI-ECG is inexpensive, a drawback is low positive predictive value (PPV), which leads to high costs from unnecessary follow-up tests. Therefore, strategies to improve the yield of AI-ECG-based screening are needed. Aim: To evaluate the cost savings of a stepwise approach to SHD screening with AI-ECG followed by POCUS compared to AI-ECG alone. Methods: 286 adult outpatients undergoing AI-ECG were selected at random. Participants received same-day POCUS and had a recent TTE (our gold standard for SHD). We evaluated four SHDs: aortic stenosis (AS), cardiac amyloidosis (CA), HCM, and LVD. The costs of AI-ECG ($75) and TTE ($1,305) were obtained from Healthcare Bluebook. The cost of POCUS ($100) was estimated independently. Cost savings were analyzed for simultaneous screening for all forms of SHD and screening for individual SHDs. Results: AI-ECG identified potential SHD in 125 patients, but only 39 were true positives by TTE (31% PPV). In AI-ECG positive patients, POCUS demonstrated findings of SHD in 52/125. Compared to TTE, this stepwise approach yielded 32 true positives and 20 false positives (62% PPV). The cost per patient diagnosed with SHD was $4,733 with AI-ECG alone but decreased to $3,182 with stepwise screening (33% cost savings). Screening for individual SHDs resulted in cost reduction from $18,724 to $6,315 (66% savings) for AS, $21,023 to $12,230 (42% savings) for CA, $9,883 to $6,175 (38% savings) for HCM, and $4,019 to $3,582 (11% savings) for LVD. Conclusions: Stepwise screening for SHD with AI-ECG followed by POCUS significantly reduces costs compared to AI-ECG alone. We also suggest a model for parallel screening for multiple SHDs, which is likely more cost-effective than screening for individual SHDs.