Advertisement

A Review of the Emergence and Expansion of Cardiovascular Genetic Counseling

  • Tia MoscarelloEmail author
  • Colleen Caleshu
Genetics (A.T. Owens and N. Reza, Section Editors)

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The genetic counseling profession is growing rapidly, as is its presence in cardiology. In this review, we will survey recent innovations and research in cardiovascular genetic counseling, as well as findings from the broader genetic counseling field that are relevant to cardiovascular genetic counseling.

Recent Findings

Research into the structure of services finds that genetic counselors are increasingly being embedded within cardiology departments and that cardiologists value their expertise and contributions. Findings from other genetic counseling subspecialties and from clinical psychology suggest this trend toward moving genetic counselors into the cardiology clinic will increase access, timeliness, and uptake of genetics services. Studies on the selection and interpretation of genetic tests in cardiology have shown that there is a need for specialized expertise in these areas. This has led clinical genetic counselors, in collaboration with their physician colleagues, to take a more active role in assessing whether genetic variants contribute to disease. Evidence on the psychological and behavioral impact of cardiovascular genetic counseling is beginning to emerge with several non-randomized and one randomized study showing benefit. As investigators, genetic counselors are leading studies that generate practice-shaping insights into inherited cardiovascular disease, including the genetic underpinnings of disease, natural history, prognosis, psychological impact, and genetic test interpretation.

Summary

Genetic counseling is in its early days as an academic and scientific discipline, yet there are, nonetheless, several notable recent findings that are shaping the field.

Keywords

Genetic counseling Cardiac genetics Interdisciplinary care Genetic testing Service delivery Cardiovascular genetic counseling 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Tia Moscarello declares she has no conflicts of interest. Colleen Caleshu declares intellectual property and receives royalties for genome interpretation technology; she is a stockholder of Personalis, an advisor to Phosphorus and Gene Matters, and a consultant for Clear Genetics and Myokardia.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Definition Task Force, Resta R, Biesecker BB, Bennett RL, Blum S, Hahn SE, et al. A new definition of genetic counseling: National Society of Genetic Counselors’ Task Force report. J Genet Couns. 2006;15:77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kessler S. Psychological Aspects of Genetic Counseling. IX. Teaching and Counseling. J Genet Couns. 1997;6:287–95.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey Subcommittee. National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey 2018: Work Environment Report. 2018.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Accreditation Council of Genetic Counseling. Standards of accreditation for graduate programs in Genetic Counseling [Internet]. 2013 Feb. Available: https://www.gceducation.org/standards-of-accreditation/
  5. 5.
    Genetic Counselors : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [Internet]. 12 Apr 2019 [cited 10 Jul 2019]. Available: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/genetic-counselors.htm
  6. 6.
    Professional Status Survey Subcommittee. National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey Executive Summary. 2018.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Issues Committee. National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey 2006. 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ingles J, Yeates L, Semsarian C. The emerging role of the cardiac genetic counselor. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:1958–62.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hershberger RE, Givertz MM, Ho CY, Judge DP, Kantor PF, McBride KL, et al. Genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy-a Heart Failure Society of America Practice Guideline. J Card Fail. 2018;24:281–302.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Towbin JA, McKenna WJ, Abrams DJ, Ackerman MJ, Calkins H, Darrieux FCC, et al. 2019 HRS expert consensus statement on evaluation, risk stratification, and management of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. Heart Rhythm. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.05.007.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ashley EA, Hershberger RE, Caleshu C, Ellinor PT, Garcia JGN, Herrington DM, et al. Genetics and cardiovascular disease: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;126:142–57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Priori SG, Wilde AA, Horie M, Cho Y, Behr ER, Berul C, et al. HRS/EHRA/APHRS expert consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of patients with inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes: document endorsed by HRS, EHRA, and APHRS in May 2013 and by ACCF, AHA, PACES, and AEPC in June 2013. Heart Rhythm. 2013;10:1932–63.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sturm AC, Knowles JW, Gidding SS, Ahmad ZS, Ahmed CD, Ballantyne CM, et al. Clinical genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:662–80.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, Bersin RM, Carr VF, Casey DE Jr, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thora. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76:E43–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ackerman MJ, Priori SG, Willems S, Berul C, Brugada R, Calkins H, et al. HRS/EHRA expert consensus statement on the state of genetic testing for the channelopathies and cardiomyopathies this document was developed as a partnership between the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Heart Rhythm. 2011;8:1308–39.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ABGC - American Board of Genetic Counseling, Inc. | ABGC [Internet]. [cited 23 Jul 2019]. Available: https://www.abgc.net/
  17. 17.
    Professional Status Survey Subcommittee. National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey 2008 [Internet].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Professional Status Survey Subcommittee. National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey 2010: Work Environment Report [Internet].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Professional Status Survey Subcommittee. National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey 2012: Work Environment Report [Internet].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Professional Status Survey Subcommittee. National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey 2016: Work Environment Report [Internet].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Professional Status Survey Subcommittee. National Society of Genetic Counselors Professional Status Survey: 2014 Work Environment Report. 2014.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Austin J. 2020 Vision: genetic counselors as acknowledged leaders in integrating genetics and genomics into healthcare. J Genet Couns. 2016;25:1–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Athens BA, Caldwell SL, Umstead KL, Connors PD, Brenna E, Biesecker BB. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to assess outcomes of genetic counseling. J Genet Couns. 2017;26:902–33 Athens et al. describe the first meta-analysis of randomized control trials in genetic counseling, identifying 58 studies that fit criteria. Psychological well-being was assessed in 40 out of 52 (69%) publications; specifically, anxiety, depressive symptoms, intrusive thoughts, quality of life, and disease-specific worry were assessed. Thirty one (59%) publications assessed service delivery models (i.e., telephone versus in-person genetic counseling). Most (76%) trials were conducted in cancer genetics, and none in cardiovascular genetics.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spoonamore K, Orland K, Caleshu C. Who are the cardiologists early to adopt integration of genetic counselors into clinical practice? [Internet]. J. Genet. Couns. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-016-0027-x.
  25. 25.
    Erskine KE, Griffith E, Degroat N, Stolerman M, Silverstein LB, Hidayatallah N, et al. An interdisciplinary approach to personalized medicine: case studies from a cardiogenetics clinic. Per Med. 2013;10:73–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zentner D, Thompson TN, James PA, Trainer A, Adès LC, Macciocca I, et al. The Cardiac Genetics Clinic: a model for multidisciplinary genomic medicine. Med J Aust. 2015;203:261.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Caleshu C, Kasparian NA, Edwards KS, Yeates L, Semsarian C, Perez M, et al. Interdisciplinary psychosocial care for families with inherited cardiovascular diseases. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2016;26:647–53.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Langen IM, Birnie E, Schuurman E, Tan HL, Hofman N, Bonsel GJ, et al. Preferences of cardiologists and clinical geneticists for the future organization of genetic care in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a survey. Clin Genet. 2005;68:360–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Helm BM, Freeze SL, Spoonamore KG, Ware SM, Ayers MD, Kean AC. The genetic counselor in the pediatric arrhythmia clinic: review and assessment of services. J Genet Couns. 2018;27:558–64 Helm et al. describe the establishment of a multidisciplinary pediatric arrhythmia clinic. After screening the pediatric electrophysiologists’ clinic schedule, the team determined that 14.4% were appropriate for genetic counseling, most often due to a personal history of disease (75% of patients). The most common indications were long QT syndrome or other possible cardiac channelopathy.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Reuter C, Grove ME, Orland K, Spoonamore K, Caleshu C. Clinical cardiovascular genetic counselors take a leading role in team-based variant classification. J Genet Couns. 2018;27:751–60 Reuter et al. surveyed cardiovascular genetic counselors, almost all of whom work with a cardiologist who specializes in inherited cardiovascular disease. Nearly all (95.7%) of genetic counselors surveyed gather additional data on the variants identified via genetic testing, and most (81.4%) assess pathogenicity. A role historically thought to be the purview of laboratories has been taken on by clinicians, and qualitative responses suggest this practice started due to inconsistent interpretations between laboratories, and mismanagement of families based on genetic test results.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Musunuru K, Arora P, Cooke JP, Ferguson JF, Hershberger RE, Hickey KT, et al. Interdisciplinary models for research and clinical endeavors in genomic medicine: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2018;11:e000046.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kentwell M, Dow E, Antill Y, Wrede CD, McNally O, Higgs E, et al. Mainstreaming cancer genetics: a model integrating germline BRCA testing into routine ovarian cancer clinics. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;145:130–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Senter L, O’Malley DM, Backes FJ, Copeland LJ, Fowler JM, Salani R, et al. Genetic consultation embedded in a gynecologic oncology clinic improves compliance with guideline-based care. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;147:110–4.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bednar EM, Oakley HD, Sun CC, Burke CC, Munsell MF, Westin SN, et al. A universal genetic testing initiative for patients with high-grade, non-mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer and the implications for cancer treatment. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146:399–404.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pederson HJ, Hussain N, Noss R, Yanda C, O’Rourke C, Eng C, et al. Impact of an embedded genetic counselor on breast cancer treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169:43–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gatchel RJ, McGeary DD, McGeary CA, Lippe B. Interdisciplinary chronic pain management: past, present, and future. Am Psychol. 2014;69:119–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zeiss AM, Karlin BE. Integrating mental health and primary care services in the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2008;15:73–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bai R, Napolitano C, Bloise R, Monteforte N, Priori SG. Yield of genetic screening in inherited cardiac channelopathies: how to prioritize access to genetic testing. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2009;2:6–15.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Perez MV, Kumarasamy NA, Owens DK, Wang PJ, Hlatky MA. Cost-effectiveness of genetic testing in family members of patients with long-QT syndrome. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4:76–84.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wonderling D, Umans-Eckenhausen MAW, Marks D, Defesche JC, Kastelein JJP, Thorogood M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the genetic screening program for familial hypercholesterolemia in The Netherlands. Semin Vasc Med. 2004;4:97–104.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Arscott P, Caleshu C, Kotzer K, Kreykes S, Kruisselbrink T, Orland K, et al. A case for inclusion of genetic counselors in cardiac care. Cardiol Rev. 2016;24:49–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Krasowski MD, Chudzik D, Dolezal A, Steussy B, Gailey MP, Koch B, et al. Promoting improved utilization of laboratory testing through changes in an electronic medical record: experience at an academic medical center. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15:11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Suarez CJ, Yu L, Downs N, Costa HA, Stevenson DA. Promoting appropriate genetic testing: the impact of a combined test review and consultative service. Genet Med. 2017;19:1049–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Miller CE, Krautscheid P, Baldwin EE, Tvrdik T, Openshaw AS, Hart K, et al. Genetic counselor review of genetic test orders in a reference laboratory reduces unnecessary testing. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A:1094–101.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dickerson JA, Cole B, Conta JH, Wellner M, Wallace SE, Jack RM, et al. Improving the value of costly genetic reference laboratory testing with active utilization management. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:110–3.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Riley JD, Procop GW, Kottke-Marchant K, Wyllie R, Lacbawan FL. Improving molecular genetic test utilization through order restriction, test review, and guidance. J Mol Diagn. 2015;17:225–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bland A, Harrington EA, Dunn K, Pariani M, Platt JCK, Grove ME, et al. Clinically impactful differences in variant interpretation between clinicians and testing laboratories: a single-center experience. Genet Med. 2018;20:369–73.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Furqan A, Arscott P, Girolami F, Cirino AL, Michels M, Day SM, et al. Care in specialized centers and data sharing increase agreement in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genetic test interpretation. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2017;10.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.116.001700.
  49. 49.
    Harrison SM, Dolinksy JS, Chen W, Collins CD, Das S, Deignan JL, et al. Scaling resolution of variant classification differences in ClinVar between 41 clinical laboratories through an outlier approach. Hum Mutat. 2018;39:1641–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Helm BM, Ayers MD, Kean AC. All along the watchtower: a case of long QT syndrome misdiagnosis secondary to genetic testing misinterpretation. J Genet Couns. 2018;27:1515–22.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Warring SK, Anderson HN, Bos JM, Ackerman MJ. Inaccurate diagnosis of Brugada syndrome in a healthy woman based on SCN5A mutation classification. HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2017;3:450–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17:405–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    • Kelly MA, Caleshu C, Morales A, Buchan J, Wolf Z, Harrison SM, et al. Adaptation and validation of the ACMG/AMP variant classification framework for MYH7-associated inherited cardiomyopathies: recommendations by ClinGen’s Inherited Cardiomyopathy Expert Panel. Genet Med. 2018;20:351–9 The ClinGen Inherited Cardiomyopathy Expert Panel created gene-specific guidelines for the interpretation of MYH7 variants. These guidelines stress the importance of rigorous review of case data and segregation data and that disease-causing MYH7 must be exceedingly rare in general population databases. Less emphasis is placed on functional and in silico data, as assays for MYH7 do not recapitulate the native cellular environment.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chora JR, Iacocca MA, Carrie A, Tichy L, Leigh SE, DiStefano MT, et al. Adaptation of ACMG/AMP guidelines for variant interpretation in familial hypercholesterolemia – a ClinGen FH expert panel pilot study. Atherosclerosis. 2018;275:e98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ingles J, Goldstein J, Thaxton C, Caleshu C, Corty EW, Crowley SB, et al. Evaluating the clinical validity of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genes. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2019;12:e002460.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Moscarello T, Murray B, Reuter CM, Demo E. Direct-to-consumer raw genetic data and third-party interpretation services: more burden than bargain? Genet Med. 2019;21:539–41.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tandy-Connor S, Guiltinan J, Krempely K, LaDuca H, Reineke P, Gutierrez S, et al. False-positive results released by direct-to-consumer genetic tests highlight the importance of clinical confirmation testing for appropriate patient care. Genet Med. 2018;20:1515–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Waddell-Smith KE, Donoghue T, Oates S, Graham A, Crawford J, Stiles MK, et al. Inpatient detection of cardiac-inherited disease: the impact of improving family history taking. Open Heart. 2016;3:e000329.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Welch BM, Wiley K, Pflieger L, Achiangia R, Baker K, Hughes-Halbert C, et al. Review and comparison of electronic patient-facing family health history tools. J Genet Couns. 2018;27:381–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Slomp C, Morris E, Inglis A, Lehman A, Austin J. Patient outcomes of genetic counseling: assessing the impact of different approaches to family history collection. Clin Genet. 2018;93:830–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Austin J, Semaka A, Hadjipavlou G. Conceptualizing genetic counseling as psychotherapy in the era of genomic medicine. J Genet Couns. 2014;23:903–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ison HE, Ware SM, Schwantes-An T-H, Freeze S, Elmore L, Spoonamore KG. The impact of cardiovascular genetic counseling on patient empowerment. J Genet Couns. 2019;28:570–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    McAllister M, Wood AM, Dunn G, Shiloh S, Todd C. The Genetic Counseling Outcome Scale: a new patient-reported outcome measure for clinical genetics services. Clin Genet. 2011;79:413–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Voorwinden JS, Plantinga M, Krijnen W, Ausems M, Knoers N, Velthuizen M, et al. A validated PROM in genetic counselling: the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Genetic Counselling Outcome Scale. Eur J Hum Genet. 2019;27:681–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Murray B. Genetic counseling is associated with increased empowerment and decreased fear in patients with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM). Heart Rhythm Society 2019; San Francisco.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    • S-AN B, Jouni H, Marroush TS, Kullo IJ. Effect of disclosing genetic risk for coronary heart disease on information seeking and sharing: the MI-GENES study (Myocardial Infarction Genes). Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2017;10.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.116.001613 Two hundred and three patients who learned about their personalized risk for coronary artery disease via a polygenic risk score and delivered by a genetic counselor were more likely to act on the information than patients who did not. Patients who received a risk score were more likely to seek more information about coronary artery disease and discuss their risk with their primary care physician and family members.
  67. 67.
    Semsarian C, Ingles J, Maron MS, Maron BJ. New perspectives on the prevalence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1249–54.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schwartz PJ, Stramba-Badiale M, Crotti L, Pedrazzini M, Besana A, Bosi G, et al. Prevalence of the congenital long-QT syndrome. Circulation. 2009;120:1761–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Nordestgaard BG, Chapman MJ, Humphries SE, Ginsberg HN, Masana L, Descamps OS, et al. Familial hypercholesterolaemia is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the general population: guidance for clinicians to prevent coronary heart disease: consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:3478–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Maron BJ, Gardin JM, Flack JM, Gidding SS, Kurosaki TT, Bild DE. Prevalence of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in a general population of young adults: echocardiographic analysis of 4111 subjects in the CARDIA study. Circulation. 1995;92:785–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Fournier DM, Bazzell AF, Dains JE. Comparing outcomes of genetic counseling options in breast and ovarian cancer: an integrative review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2018;45:96–105.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Zierhut HA, MacFarlane IM, Ahmed Z, Davies J. Genetic counselors’ experiences and interest in telegenetics and remote counseling. J Genet Couns. 2018;27:329–38.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Heather Zierhut And. The impact of New CMS rules for telehealth on cancer genetic counseling. Am J Manag Care. 2018; Available: https://www.ajmc.com/journals/evidence-based-oncology/2018/june-2018/the-impact-of-new-cms-rules-for-telehealth-on-cancer-genetic-counseling
  74. 74.
    Pirzadeh-Miller S, Robinson LS, Read P, Ross TS. Genetic counseling assistants: an integral piece of the evolving genetic counseling service delivery model. J Genet Couns. 2017;26:716–27.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hnatiuk MJ, Noss R, Mitchell AL, Matthews AL. The current state of genetic counseling assistants in the United States. J Genet Couns. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1148.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gordon ES, Babu D, Laney DA. The future is now: technology’s impact on the practice of genetic counseling. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2018;178:15–23.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Rashkin MD, Bowes J, Dunaway K, Dhaliwal J, Loomis E, Riffle S, et al. Genetic counseling, 2030: an on-demand service tailored to the needs of a price conscious, genetically literate, and busy world. J Genet Couns. 2019;28:456–65.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Flannery DB. Challenges and opportunities for effective delivery of clinical genetic services in the U.S. healthcare system. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2018;30:740–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Biesecker BB, Lewis KL, Umstead KL, Johnston JJ, Turbitt E, Fishler KP, et al. Web platform vs in-person genetic counselor for return of carrier results from exome sequencing: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:338–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wang W, Orgeron G, Tichnell C, Murray B, Crosson J, Monfredi O, et al. Impact of exercise restriction on arrhythmic risk among patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7.  https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.008843.
  81. 81.
    Judge DP, Calkins H, James CA. Exercise has a disproportionate role in the pathogenesis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy in patients without desmosomal mutations. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014; Available: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/JAHA.114.001471
  82. 82.
    • James CA, Bhonsale A, Tichnell C, Murray B, Russell SD, Tandri H, et al. Exercise increases age-related penetrance and arrhythmic risk in arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy--associated desmosomal mutation carriers. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1290–7 This is the first of several studies led by a genetic counselor which suggests that patients who were endurance athletes prior to a diagnosis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy are more likely to meet ARVC Task Force Criteria and experience a more severe course with a marked incidence of ventricular tachycardia and/or fibrillation. Sixty-four percent of patients were endurance athletes prior to diagnosis.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ingles J, Spinks C, Yeates L, McGeechan K, Kasparian N, Semsarian C. Posttraumatic stress and prolonged grief after the sudden cardiac death of a young relative. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:402–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Luiten RC, Ormond K, Post L, Asif IM, Wheeler MT, Caleshu C. Exercise restrictions trigger psychological difficulty in active and athletic adults with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Open Heart. 2016;3:e000488.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Subas T, Luiten R, Hanson-Kahn A, Wheeler M, Caleshu C. Evolving decisions: perspectives of active and athletic individuals with inherited heart disease who exercise against recommendations. J Genet Couns. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-018-0297-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Miller EM, Hinton RB, Czosek R, Lorts A, Parrott A, Shikany AR, et al. Genetic testing in pediatric left ventricular noncompaction. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2017;10.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.117.001735.
  87. 87.
    Burns C, Bagnall RD, Lam L, Semsarian C, Ingles J. Multiple gene variants in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in the era of next-generation sequencing. Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2017;10.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.116.001666.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular DiseaseStanford Health CareStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Division of Medical GeneticsStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Division of Cardiovascular MedicineStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations