Why the study?
How should arrhythmic risk be stratified and managed in patients with Brugada syndrome?
How should arrhythmic risk be stratified and managed in patients with Brugada syndrome?
Risk stratification in Brugada syndrome relies on clinical presentation (prior sudden death, syncope) and ECG patterns to guide appropriate ICD implantation.
Supports risk stratification for ICD decisions in Brugada syndrome; leaves open need for prospective validation of estimates.
Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a clinical entity characterised by an incomplete right bundle branch block associated with an ST segment elevation in the right precordial leads and a risk of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death in the absence of structural abnormalities. Patients with a personal history of sudden death have an annual arrhythmia risk of recurrence as high as 10 %. Similarly, the presence of syncope is consistently associated with an increased arrhythmic risk. This risk can be estimated at about 1.5 % per year. The risk is lower in asymptomatic patients. Regarding the relatively high rate of complication of Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation, in most of the cases, asymptomatic patients with a Brugada syndrome revealed during ajmaline challenge do not need to be implanted. The situation is more complex in patients with a spontaneous type 1 aspect since the risk could be estimated to be around 0.8 % per year. For these patients, a careful evaluation of the arrhythmic risk using all the different tools available is mandatory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Probst et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: