Why the study?
Prior 2022 ESC guidelines offered guidance on pharmacological provocation testing in cardiac electrophysiology but did not describe indications and requirements in depth.
This consensus statement provides detailed, practical guidance on the indications and requirements for pharmacological provocation testing in cardiac electrophysiology, building upon the 2022 ESC Guidelines.
Standardizes pharmacological provocation testing for arrhythmia syndromes and sudden cardiac arrest; extends 2022 ESC guidelines with international consensus on indications and agents.
The pharmacological provocation test is a pivotal tool in cardiac electrophysiology for the diagnosis of potential causes of sudden cardiac death, sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), arrhythmias, symptoms, or ECG abnormalities. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmias and Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death offered guidance on provocation testing but did not describe the indications and requirements in depth. This clinical consensus statement, led by the European Heart Rhythm Association and approved by major international stakeholders, aims to advise the general cardiologist and the arrhythmia expert who to test and when, where, and how to do it. The statement focuses on current practice for the diagnosis of subclinical arrhythmia syndromes and the causes of SCA, building upon the recommendations of the Guidelines. We address the sodium channel blocker provocation test for patients suspected of Brugada syndrome as well as the use of epinephrine, isoproterenol, adenosine, ergonovine, and acetylcholine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Behr et al. (2025) conducted a review in Subclinical arrhythmia syndromes and sudden cardiac arrest. Pharmacological provocation testing was evaluated. Pharmacological provocation testing for the diagnosis of subclinical arrhythmia syndromes and causes of sudden cardiac arrest is detailed in this international clinical consensus statement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: