Sacher, Frederic

Abstract Aims Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) is a common valvular disorder associated with ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in a subgroup of patients, known as arrhythmic MVP (AMVP). Arrhythmic MVP patients with malignant VAs typically receive an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for secondary prevention. However, data regarding the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy and the type of arrhythmia recurrence in this population remain scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of appropriate ICD therapies and type of arrhythmia recurrence in AMVP patients with an ICD implanted for secondary prevention. Methods and results A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until January 2025. Studies reporting the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy in AMVP patients were included. A total of 9 studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 166 AMVP patients with ICDs for secondary prevention. The mean age was 41.8 years, with 55.8% of patients being female. Over a weighted mean follow-up of 4.9 ± 3.1 years, 34.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 28.1–42.5] of the patients experienced recurrence of VA. The pooled incidence of appropriate ICD therapies during follow-up was 8.1 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 5.6–10.5, I2: 11.7%). Regarding the type of arrhythmic recurrence, the majority of arrhythmias (53.8%, 95% CI: 44.3–63.0%) were in the form of ventricular fibrillation or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT), while the remaining arrhythmias were reported as monomorphic VT. Among 67 ventricular arrhythmic episodes reported in 7 studies with available data, 65 required shock therapy, corresponding to a shock proportion of 97.0% (95% CI: 89.6–99.6%). Conclusion Arrhythmic MVP patients with ICDs for secondary prevention exhibit a high risk of recurrent arrhythmias, with recurrences in the form of polymorphic VA occurring in more than half of the cases. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024588610

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: In severely affected patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, beta-blockers are often insufficiently protective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether flecainide is associated with a lower incidence of arrhythmic events (AEs) when added to beta-blockers in a large cohort of patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. METHODS: From 2 international registries, this multicenter case cross-over study included patients with a clinical or genetic diagnosis of catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in whom flecainide was added to beta-blocker therapy. The study period was defined as the period in which background therapy (ie, beta-blocker type [beta1-selective or nonselective]), left cardiac sympathetic denervation, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator treatment status, remained unchanged within individual patients and was divided into pre-flecainide and on-flecainide periods. The primary end point was AEs, defined as sudden cardiac death, sudden cardiac arrest, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock, and arrhythmic syncope. The association of flecainide with AE rates was assessed using a generalized linear mixed model assuming negative binomial distribution and random effects for patients. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients (123 [50%] females; median age at start of flecainide, 18 years [interquartile range, 14–29]; median flecainide dose, 2.2 mg/kg per day [interquartile range, 1.7–3.1]) were included. At baseline, all patients used a beta-blocker, 70 (28%) had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and 21 (9%) had a left cardiac sympathetic denervation. During a median pre-flecainide follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 0.4–7.2), 41 patients (17%) experienced 58 AEs (annual event rate, 5.6%). During a median on-flecainide follow-up of 2.9 years (interquartile range, 1.0–6.0), 23 patients (9%) experienced 38 AEs (annual event rate, 4.0%). There were significantly fewer AEs after initiation of flecainide (incidence rate ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.38–0.83]; P =0.007). Among patients who were symptomatic before diagnosis or during the pre-flecainide period (n=167), flecainide was associated with significantly fewer AEs (incidence rate ratio, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.31–0.77]; P =0.002). Among patients with ≥1 AE on beta-blocker therapy (n=41), adding flecainide was also associated with significantly fewer AEs (incidence rate ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.14–0.45]; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, adding flecainide to beta-blocker therapy was associated with a lower incidence of AEs in the overall cohort, in symptomatic patients, and particularly in patients with breakthrough AEs while on beta-blocker therapy.

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.