Abstract 4369728: Electrocardiographic Aging in Genetic Cardiomyopathies: Insights from an Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Electrocardiogram Analysis

Abstract

Background: Arrhythmogenic and dilated cardiomyopathies (ACM/DCM) are associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including sudden death. Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled electrocardiographic aging algorithms estimate biological age from 12-lead tracings and predict cardiovascular outcomes in the general population. However, their utility in genetic ACM/DCM has not been studied. Methods: Retrospective review of 1,045 genotype-positive ACM/DCM patients was used to identify those with a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant in ClinGen-classified definitive/strong evidence ACM/DCM-susceptibility genes. Following exclusion of patients without a baseline ECG for analysis (e.g. paced rhythms), the AI-ECG age gap (AI-EAG) was calculated by subtracting chronological from AI-ECG age. Genes were grouped into functional categories: desmosomal ( PKP2, DSP, DSG2, DSC2, JUP ), nuclear envelope ( LMNA ), sarcomeric ( TTN, MYH7, TNNT2 ), cytoskeleton/Z-disc ( FLNC, DES, DMD, BAG3 ), and regulatory/ion channel ( PLN, RBM20, SCN5A ). Cardiac MRI data included left ventricular structure, function, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) presence and pattern. Mann-Whitney U was used for group comparisons; results are shown as median (IQR). Results: Overall, 824 patients (52.8% male; median age of 40.7 years, IQR 26.5–53.4; and median AI-EAG of 7.49 years, IQR 0.43–15.26) were included. DES variant-positive patients had the highest (19.98 years, IQR 9.66–23.21) and BAG3 variant-positive patients the lowest (–0.95 years, IQR -6.05–7.61) AI-EAGs. Among gene groups, nuclear envelope had the highest (15.12 years, IQR 6.79–25.17) and sarcomeric the lowest (5.75 years, IQR -0.69-14.01) AI-EAGs. Cardiac MRI was available for 538/824 (65%) of which 233/538 (43.3%) had LGE. No significant difference in AI-EAG was observed between LGE-positive and -negative patients (6.99 vs. 7.94 years; p=0.831). However, several LGE patterns were associated with significantly higher AI-EAGs: subepicardial (9.88 vs. 6.84; p=0.004), transmural (13.83 vs. 7.25; p=0.012), apical (12.89 vs. 7.17; p=0.002), and septal (8.91 vs. 7.19; p=0.016). Conclusion: AI-EAG varies by gene and functional group, possibly reflecting gene-specific myocardial remodeling. While certain LGE patterns were linked to increased biological aging, overall LGE status was not. These findings suggest AI-EAG may capture disease activity that is distinct from LGE and could serve as a complementary, non-invasive biomarker in genetic ACM/DCM.