Wilde, Arthur A M

ABSTRACT J‐wave syndromes (JWS)—comprising Brugada syndrome (BrS) and early repolarization syndrome (ERS)—are important causes of malignant ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in patients whose hearts appear structurally normal. Since the 2016 consensus, advances in genetics, pathophysiology, and therapy have redefined both understanding and management. BrS, once viewed as a purely electrical disorder, is now recognized along a microstructural–electrical continuum, with sodium‐channel dysfunction and subtle epicardial fibrosis of the right ventricular outflow tract as key contributors. Likewise, ERS—historically considered benign—carries significant risk when inferolateral J‐waves coexist with arrhythmic events. Genetically, SCN5A remains the sole gene with definitive disease association, while polygenic susceptibility materially modulates risk, underscoring complex inheritance. Risk stratification remains challenging: patients with prior cardiac arrest or arrhythmic syncope are highest risk, whereas asymptomatic individuals warrant multiparametric assessment integrating clinical features, ECG markers, electrophysiologic studies, and genetics. For decades, treatment centered on implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators and quinidine, both limited by availability, tolerance, and device complications. More recently, epicardial substrate ablation has emerged as a transformative therapy, with large registries and randomized trials demonstrating durable suppression of ventricular fibrillation and acceptable safety. This APHRS‐organized international consensus updates and extends the 2016 Expert Consensus and the 2022 ESC Guidelines, providing contemporary diagnostic frameworks, pragmatic risk‐stratification tools, and treatment algorithms for BrS and ERS. It emphasizes JWS as a microstructural–electrical disease spectrum and elevates substrate ablation as a major therapeutic advance, while outlining priorities for genetics, risk‐stratification and treatment algorithms.

Abstract The pharmacological provocation test is a pivotal tool in cardiac electrophysiology for the diagnosis of potential causes of sudden cardiac death, sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), arrhythmias, symptoms, or ECG abnormalities. The 2022 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmias and Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death offered guidance on provocation testing but did not describe the indications and requirements in depth. This clinical consensus statement, led by the European Heart Rhythm Association and approved by major international stakeholders, aims to advise the general cardiologist and the arrhythmia expert who to test and when, where, and how to do it. The statement focuses on current practice for the diagnosis of subclinical arrhythmia syndromes and the causes of SCA, building upon the recommendations of the Guidelines. We address the sodium channel blocker provocation test for patients suspected of Brugada syndrome as well as the use of epinephrine, isoproterenol, adenosine, ergonovine, and acetylcholine.

Abstract Aims In patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), a rare inherited arrhythmia syndrome, arrhythmic events can be prevented by medication and lifestyle recommendations. In patients who experience breakthrough arrhythmic events, non-adherence plays an essential role. We aimed to investigate the incidence and potential reasons for non-adherence to medication and lifestyle recommendations in a large, international cohort of patients with CPVT. Methods and results An online multilingual survey was shared with CPVT patients worldwide by their cardiologists, through peer-recruitment, and on social media from November 2022 until July 2023. Self-reported non-adherence was measured using the validated Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) and a newly developed questionnaire about lifestyle. Additionally, validated questionnaires were used to assess potential reasons for medication non-adherence. Two-hundred-and-eighteen patients completed the survey, of whom 200 (92%) were prescribed medication [122 (61%) female; median age 33.5 years (interquartile range: 22–50)]. One-hundred-and-three (52%) were prescribed beta-blocker and flecainide, 85 (43%) beta-blocker, and 11 (6%) flecainide. Thirty-four (17%) patients experienced a syncope, aborted cardiac arrest or appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock after diagnosis. Nineteen (13.4%) patients were exercising more than recommended. Thirty (15%) patients were non-adherent to medication. Female sex [odds ratio (OR) 3.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3–12.0, P = 0.019], flecainide monotherapy compared to combination therapy (OR 6.8, 95% CI 1.6–31.0, P = 0.010), and a higher agreement with statements regarding concerns about CPVT medication (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.3, P < 0.001) were independently associated with non-adherence. Conclusion The significant rate of non-adherence associated with concerns regarding CPVT-related medication, emphasizes the potential for improving therapy adherence by targeted patient education.

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.

Abstract Aims Calmodulinopathy due to mutations in any of the three CALM genes (CALM1–3) causes life-threatening arrhythmia syndromes, especially in young individuals. The International Calmodulinopathy Registry (ICalmR) aims to define and link the increasing complexity of the clinical presentation to the underlying molecular mechanisms. Methods and results The ICalmR is an international, collaborative, observational study, assembling and analysing clinical and genetic data on CALM-positive patients. The ICalmR has enrolled 140 subjects (median age 10.8 years [interquartile range 5–19]), 97 index cases and 43 family members. CALM-LQTS and CALM-CPVT are the prevalent phenotypes. Primary neurological manifestations, unrelated to post-anoxic sequelae, manifested in 20 patients. Calmodulinopathy remains associated with a high arrhythmic event rate (symptomatic patients, n = 103, 74%). However, compared with the original 2019 cohort, there was a reduced frequency and severity of all cardiac events (61% vs. 85%; P = .001) and sudden death (9% vs. 27%; P = .008). Data on therapy do not allow definitive recommendations. Cardiac structural abnormalities, either cardiomyopathy or congenital heart defects, are present in 30% of patients, mainly CALM-LQTS, and lethal cases of heart failure have occurred. The number of familial cases and of families with strikingly different phenotypes is increasing. Conclusion Calmodulinopathy has pleiotropic presentations, from channelopathy to syndromic forms. Clinical severity ranges from the early onset of life-threatening arrhythmias to the absence of symptoms, and the percentage of milder and familial forms is increasing. There are no hard data to guide therapy, and current management includes pharmacological and surgical antiadrenergic interventions with sodium channel blockers often accompanied by an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator.

Brugada syndrome (BrS), early repolarization syndrome (ERS), and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (iVF) have long been considered primary electrical disorders associated with malignant ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death. However, recent studies have revealed the presence of subtle microstructural abnormalities of the extracellular matrix in some cases of BrS, ERS, and iVF, particularly within right ventricular subepicardial myocardium. Substrate-based ablation within this region has been shown to ameliorate the electrocardiographic phenotype and to reduce arrhythmia frequency in BrS. Patients with ERS and iVF may also exhibit low-voltage and fractionated electrograms in the ventricular subepicardial myocardium, which can be treated with ablation. A significant proportion of patients with BrS and ERS, as well as some iVF survivors, harbor pathogenic variants in the voltage-gated sodium channel gene, SCN5A , but the majority of genetic susceptibility of these disorders is likely to be polygenic. Here, we postulate that BrS, ERS, and iVF may form part of a spectrum of subtle subepicardial cardiomyopathy. We propose that impaired sodium current, along with genetic and environmental susceptibility, precipitates a reduction in epicardial conduction reserve, facilitating current-to-load mismatch at sites of structural discontinuity, giving rise to electrocardiographic changes and the arrhythmogenic substrate.

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.