Cutler, Michael J.

Abstract Background and Aims Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are critical for preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). This study aims to identify cross-continental differences in utilization of primary prevention ICDs and survival free from sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in ARVC. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of ARVC patients without prior VA enrolled in clinical registries from 11 countries throughout Europe and North America. Patients were classified according to whether they received treatment in North America or Europe and were further stratified by baseline predicted VA risk into low- (<10%/5 years), intermediate- (10%–25%/5 years), and high-risk (>25%/5 years) groups. Differences in ICD implantation and survival free from sustained VA events (including appropriate ICD therapy) were assessed. Results One thousand ninety-eight patients were followed for a median of 5.1 years; 554 (50.5%) received a primary prevention ICD, and 286 (26.0%) experienced a first VA event. After adjusting for baseline risk factors, North Americans were more than three times as likely to receive ICDs {hazard ratio (HR) 3.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5, 3.8]} but had only mildly increased risk for incident sustained VA [HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1, 1.8)]. North Americans without ICDs were at higher risk for incident sustained VA [HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.3, 3.4)] than Europeans. Conclusions North American ARVC patients were substantially more likely than Europeans to receive primary prevention ICDs across all arrhythmic risk strata. A lower rate of ICD implantation in Europe was not associated with a higher rate of VA events in those without ICDs.

Although there is consensus on the management of patients with Brugada Syndrome with high risk for sudden cardiac arrest, asymptomatic or intermediate-risk patients present clinical management challenges. This document explores the management opinions of experts throughout the world for patients with Brugada Syndrome who do not fit guideline recommendations. Four real-world clinical scenarios were presented with commentary from small expert groups for each case. All authors voted on case-specific questions to evaluate the level of consensus among the entire group in nuanced diagnostic and management decisions relevant to each case. Points of agreement, points of controversy, and gaps in knowledge are highlighted.

While published guidelines are useful in the care of patients with long-QT syndrome, it can be difficult to decide how to apply the guidelines to individual patients, particularly those with intermediate risk. We explored the diversity of opinion among 24 clinicians with expertise in long-QT syndrome. Experts from various regions and institutions were presented with 4 challenging clinical scenarios and asked to provide commentary emphasizing why they would make their treatment recommendations. All 24 authors were asked to vote on case-specific questions so as to demonstrate the degree of consensus or divergence of opinion. Of 24 authors, 23 voted and 1 abstained. Details of voting results with commentary are presented. There was consensus on several key points, particularly on the importance of the diagnostic evaluation and of β-blocker use. There was diversity of opinion about the appropriate use of other therapeutic measures in intermediate-risk individuals. Significant gaps in knowledge were identified.