Nademanee, Koonlawee

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.

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.

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.