Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-4-3 Asahimachi, Abeno-ku, Osaka, Japan.
Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Europace. 2018 Jul 1;20(7):1194-1200. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux096.
The prognostic value of programmed electrical stimulation (PES) in Brugada syndrome (BrS) remains controversial. One of the reasons for discrepant results may be due to the selection of stimulation protocol. We evaluated the prognostic value of a positive PES result (PES+) according to the inducible pacing sites and the number of extra-stimuli in BrS patients without previous cardiac arrest (CA).
We enrolled 224 consecutive BrS patients without previous CA (mean age 51 ± 14 years, 209 males), who underwent PES with the identical protocol. Clinical outcomes of development of CA were explored in the patients with and without PES+ according to sites and number of extra-stimuli. During a mean follow-up period of 76 months, 12 cardiac events (CE: sudden cardiac death or documented VF) occurred (8 with and 4 without PES+). The incidence of CE was not different in patients with and without PES+, those with PES+ from RVA (n = 72) or RVOT (n = 60), and those with and without PES+ by up to 2 extra-stimuli (n = 58). However, in patients that were PES+ by a single extra-stimulus (n = 8) the incidence of CE was significantly higher than in those without PES+ (8.8 vs. 0.6%/year, P < 0.0001). On univariate analysis, syncope, spontaneous type 1 ECG, and PES+ by a single extra-stimulus were associated with CE.
Details of the stimulation protocol may be important for risk assessment in BrS patients without previous CA. A single extra-stimulus may be useful in stratifying risk in patients with spontaneous type 1 ECG and syncope.
程序性电刺激(PES)在Brugada 综合征(BrS)中的预后价值仍存在争议。结果不一致的原因之一可能是由于刺激方案的选择。我们评估了无既往心脏骤停(CA)的 BrS 患者根据诱发性起搏部位和额外刺激次数的阳性 PES 结果(PES+)的预后价值。
我们纳入了 224 例连续无既往 CA 的 BrS 患者(平均年龄 51±14 岁,209 名男性),他们接受了相同方案的 PES。根据部位和额外刺激次数,在 PES+和 PES-患者中探讨了发生 CA 的临床结局。在平均 76 个月的随访期间,发生了 12 例心脏事件(CE:心源性猝死或记录的VF)(8 例有 PES+,4 例无 PES+)。有和无 PES+的患者、有 PES+来自 RV A(n=72)或 RVOT(n=60)的患者、以及有和无 PES+的患者通过最多 2 次额外刺激的患者之间,CE 的发生率没有差异(n=58)。然而,在 PES+通过单次额外刺激的患者(n=8)中,CE 的发生率明显高于无 PES+的患者(8.8%与 0.6%/年,P<0.0001)。单因素分析显示,晕厥、自发 1 型 ECG 和 PES+通过单次额外刺激与 CE 相关。
在无既往 CA 的 BrS 患者中,刺激方案的细节可能对风险评估很重要。对于自发 1 型 ECG 和晕厥的患者,单次额外刺激可能有助于分层风险。