ArticleKorean circulation journal2026
Genotype-Driven Prognostication in Dilated Cardiomyopathy.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) has a variable prognosis and generally poor outcomes. Genetic testing could identify high-risk patients. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of genetic testing in patients with DCM.
methodsThis retrospective study included consecutive patients with DCM who underwent targeted panel sequencing or whole genome sequencing at Samsung Medical Center from 2018 to 2023. Patients were divided into genotype-positive and genotype-negative groups based on the presence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, heart transplantation, and left ventricular assist device implantation at 5 years. The primary outcome was compared according to the results of genetic testing.
resultsIn total, 239 patients were analyzed and followed for a median of 2.6 years. Among the patients, 79 (33.1%) were genotype-positive, and 160 (66.9%) were genotype-negative. The genotype-positive group had a significantly higher risk of the primary outcome than the genotype-negative group (hazard ratio, 1.80; confidence interval, 1.10-2.95; p=0.020). Further dividing genotype-negative patients based on the presence of a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) revealed a stepwise increase in the incidence of the primary outcome among the 3 groups (no variant 22.3%, VUS 43.9%, genotype-positive 42.9%; overall log-rank p=0.032). Also, the incidence of the primary outcome differed significantly in genotype-positive patients according to the affected functional gene group (overall log-rank p=0.003).
conclusionsPatients with DCM exhibited varying prognoses according to genotype. Further research is needed to refine risk stratification and the clinical application of genetic testing in DCM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.