Krahn, Andrew D

Abstract Background and Aims Patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) are at risk for potentially life-threatening arrhythmic events (AEs) even while treated with β-blockers. The aim was to develop a model for individualized prediction of AEs in patients with RYR2-mediated CPVT on β-blocker monotherapy. Methods The derivation and independent validation cohorts included 743 and 129 patients, respectively. AEs were defined as arrhythmic syncope, appropriate implantable cardioverter–defibrillator shock, sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), and sudden cardiac death. Near-fatal or fatal AEs (nf/fAEs) included all AEs except for arrhythmic syncope. Prediction models using Cox regression were developed and internally and externally validated. Results A total of 102 (13.7%) patients in the derivation cohort and 24 (18.6%) patients in the validation cohort experienced ≥1 AE over a median follow-up of 5.1 [interquartile range (IQR), 7.7] and 2.4 (IQR, 4.4) years, respectively. Predictors of AE were arrhythmic syncope or SCA prior to diagnosis and age at β-blocker initiation. In the derivation and validation cohorts, the optimism-corrected C-indices of the models for AE were 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62–0.72] and 0.59 (95% CI 0.48–0.71), respectively. For nf/fAEs, ventricular arrhythmia severity before β-blocker initiation was a fourth independent predictor, and C-indices of the models in the derivation and validation cohorts were 0.74 (95% CI 0.68–0.80) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.47–0.72), respectively. In the derivation cohort, calibration slopes were 1.00 (95% CI 0.59–1.41) for AE and 1.00 (95% CI 0.69–1.32) for nf/fAE. Conclusions These externally validated risk prediction models using clinical parameters accurately distinguished CPVT patients on β-blocker monotherapy at low and high risk for future AEs while treated with β-blockers. These models provide guidance for implementation of clinical management therapies to prevent AEs in patients with CPVT.

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.

Background: Symptomatic children with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) are at risk for recurrent arrhythmic events. β-Blockers decrease this risk, but studies comparing individual β-blockers in sizeable cohorts are lacking. We aimed to assess the association between risk for arrhythmic events and type of β-blocker in a large cohort of symptomatic children with CPVT. Methods: From 2 international registries of patients with CPVT, RYR2 variant–carrying symptomatic children (defined as syncope or sudden cardiac arrest before β-blocker initiation and age at start of β-blocker therapy <18 years), treated with a β-blocker were included. Cox regression analyses with time-dependent covariates for β-blockers and potential confounders were used to assess the hazard ratio (HR). The primary outcome was the first occurrence of sudden cardiac death, sudden cardiac arrest, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock, or syncope. The secondary outcome was the first occurrence of any of the primary outcomes except syncope. Results: We included 329 patients (median age at diagnosis, 12 [interquartile range, 7–15] years, 35% females). Ninety-nine (30.1%) patients experienced the primary outcome and 74 (22.5%) experienced the secondary outcome during a median follow-up of 6.7 (interquartile range, 2.8–12.5) years. Two-hundred sixteen patients (66.0%) used a nonselective β-blocker (predominantly nadolol [n=140] or propranolol [n=70]) and 111 (33.7%) used a β1-selective β-blocker (predominantly atenolol [n=51], metoprolol [n=33], or bisoprolol [n=19]) as initial β-blocker. Baseline characteristics did not differ. The HRs for both the primary and secondary outcomes were higher for β1-selective compared with nonselective β-blockers (HR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.31–3.17]; and HR, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.20–3.30], respectively). When assessed separately, the HR for the primary outcome was higher for atenolol (HR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.44–4.99]), bisoprolol (HR, 3.24 [95% CI, 1.47–7.18]), and metoprolol (HR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.08–4.40]) compared with nadolol, but did not differ from propranolol. The HR of the secondary outcome was only higher in atenolol compared with nadolol (HR, 2.68 [95% CI, 1.30–5.55]). Conclusions: β1-selective β-blockers were associated with a significantly higher risk for arrhythmic events in symptomatic children with CPVT compared with nonselective β-blockers, specifically nadolol. Nadolol, or propranolol if nadolol is unavailable, should be the preferred β-blocker for treating symptomatic children with CPVT.

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.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted healthcare delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for patients with arrhythmia. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serological testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.