4.6 Article

Clinical characteristics and long-term clinical course of patients with Brugada syndrome without previous cardiac arrest: a multiparametric risk stratification approach

期刊

EUROPACE
卷 21, 期 12, 页码 1911-1918

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euz288

关键词

Brugada syndrome; Ventricular arrhythmias; Ventricular fibrillation; Risk stratification; Sudden cardiac death; Primary prevention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Risk stratification in Brugada syndrome (BrS) still represents an unsettled issue. In this multicentre study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and the long-term clinical course of patients with BrS. Methods and results A total of 111 consecutive patients (86 males; aged 45.313.3years) diagnosed with BrS were included and followed-up in a prospective fashion. Thirty-seven patients (33.3%) were symptomatic at enrolment (arrhythmic syncope). An electrophysiological study (EPS) was performed in 59 patients (53.2%), and ventricular arrhythmias were induced in 32 (54.2%). A cardioverter defibrillator was implanted in 34 cases (30.6%). During a mean follow-up period of 4.6 +/- 3.5years, appropriate device therapies occurred in seven patients. Event-free survival analysis (log-rank test) showed that spontaneous type-1 electrocardiogram pattern (P = 0.008), symptoms at presentation (syncope) (P = 0.012), family history of sudden cardiac death (P < 0.001), positive EPS (P = 0.024), fragmented QRS (P = 0.004), and QRS duration in lead V2 > 113ms (P < 0.001) are predictors of future arrhythmic events. Event rates were 0%, 4%, and 60% among patients with 0-1 risk factor, 2-3 risk factors, and 4-5 risk factors, respectively (P < 0.001). Current multiparametric score models exhibit an excellent negative predictive value and perform well in risk stratification of BrS patients. Conclusions Multiparametric models including common risk factors appear to provide better risk stratification of BrS patients than single factors alone.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据