English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Increasing numbers of patient relatives at risk of developing dilated or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (DCM/HCM) are being identified and followed up by cardiologists according to the ACC/ESC guidelines. However, given limited healthcare resources, good-quality low-cost alternative approaches are needed. Therefore, we have compared conventional follow-up by a cardiologist with that provided at a cardiogenetic clinic (CGC) led by a genetic counsellor. Phenotype-negative first-degree relatives at risk for DCM/HCM were randomly assigned to see either a cardiologist or to attend a CGC. Uptake and resource use were recorded. For 189 participants, we evaluated quality of care experienced, patient satisfaction and perceived personal control (PPC) using validated questionnaires and estimated the average cost difference of these two modes of care. Maximum patient satisfaction scores were achieved more frequently at the CGC (86% vs 45%, P&lt;0.01). In terms of follow-up care provided, the genetic counsellor did not perform worse than the cardiologist (95% vs 59%, P&lt;0.01). The genetic counsellor more often enquired about the relative-at risk's health (100% vs 65%, P&lt;0.01) and family health (97% vs 33%, P&lt;0.01), measured blood pressure (98% vs 29%, P&lt;0.01) and gave disease-specific information (77% vs 52%, P&lt;0.01). Although PPC scores were equal in both groups, the average cost per patient of CGC follow-up was 25% lower. Follow-up of phenotype-negative relatives at risk for DCM/HCM at a CGC led to greater patient satisfaction and is well-appreciated at lower cost. CGC care is a good alternative to conventional cardiological follow-up for this growing group of patients.

Follow-up care by a genetic counsellor for relatives at risk for cardiomyopathies is cost-saving and well-appreciated: a randomised comparison