Risk stratification in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome: Utility of multiple risk factor combination rather than programmed electrical stimulation

Background The prognostic value of programmed electrical stimulation (PES) in Brugada syndrome (BrS) remains controversial. Asymptomatic BrS patients generally have a better prognosis than those with symptoms. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of nonaggressive PES with up to two extra stimuli and predict clinical factors for risk stratification in asymptomatic BrS patients. Methods The study enrolled 193 consecutive asymptomatic BrS patients with type 1 ECG (mean age: 50 ± 13 years, 180 males) who underwent PES using a nonaggressive uniform protocol. Cardiac events (CEs: sudden cardiac death or ventricular tachyarrhythmia) during the follow‐up period were examined. Results During a mean follow‐up of 101 ± 48 months, seven asymptomatic patients (3.6%) had a CE. The incidence of CEs was not different between patients with and without inducible ventricular tachyarrhythmia by PES ( p = .51). The clinical significance of risk factor combinations, including spontaneous type 1 ECG, family history of sudden cardiac death, QRS duration in lead V 2 , and presence of J wave, was evaluated. Using the Kaplan–Meier method according to the number of risk factors, the prevalence of CE in patients with three or four risk factors was determined to be significantly higher than in those with one risk factor ( p = .02 and p = .004, respectively). Conclusions The present study suggests that inducibility of ventricular tachyarrhythmia does not predict future CEs in asymptomatic BrS patients. Combination analysis of the other four clinical risk parameters may be effective for risk assessment.