Conte, Giulio

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.

BACKGROUND: Despite major advances in the clinical management of long QT syndrome, some patients are not fully protected by beta-blocker therapy. Mexiletine is a well-known sodium channel blocker, with proven efficacy in patients with sodium channel–mediated long QT syndrome type 3. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of mexiletine in long QT syndrome type 2 (LQT2) using cardiomyocytes derived from patient-specific human induced pluripotent stem cells, a transgenic LQT2 rabbit model, and patients with LQT2. METHODS: Heart rate–corrected field potential duration, a surrogate for QTc, was measured in human induced pluripotent stem cells from 2 patients with LQT2 (KCNH2-p.A561V, KCNH2-p.R366X) before and after mexiletine using a multiwell multi-electrode array system. Action potential duration at 90% repolarization (APD 90 ) was evaluated in cardiomyocytes isolated from transgenic LQT2 rabbits (KCNH2-p.G628S) at baseline and after mexiletine application. Mexiletine was given to 96 patients with LQT2. Patients were defined as responders in the presence of a QTc shortening ≥40 ms. Antiarrhythmic efficacy of mexiletine was evaluated by a Poisson regression model. RESULTS: After acute treatment with mexiletine, human induced pluripotent stem cells from both patients with LQT2 showed a significant shortening of heart rate–corrected field potential duration compared with dimethyl sulfoxide control. In cardiomyocytes isolated from LQT2 rabbits, acute mexiletine significantly shortened APD 90 by 113 ms, indicating a strong mexiletine-mediated shortening across different LQT2 model systems. Mexiletine was given to 96 patients with LQT2 either chronically (n=60) or after the acute oral drug test (n=36): 65% of the patients taking mexiletine only chronically and 75% of the patients who performed the acute oral test were responders. There was a significant correlation between basal QTc and ∆QTc during the test ( r = −0.8; P <0.001). The oral drug test correctly predicted long-term effect in 93% of the patients. Mexiletine reduced the mean yearly event rate from 0.10 (95% CI, 0.07–0.14) to 0.04 (95% CI, 0.02–0.08), with an incidence rate ratio of 0.40 (95% CI, 0.16–0.84), reflecting a 60% reduction in the event rate ( P =0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Mexiletine significantly shortens cardiac repolarization in LQT2 human induced pluripotent stem cells, in the LQT2 rabbit model, and in the majority of patients with LQT2. Furthermore, mexiletine showed antiarrhythmic efficacy. Mexiletine should therefore be considered a valid therapeutic option to be added to conventional therapies in higher-risk patients with LQT2.

Abstract In the early nineties, few years before the birth of Europace, the clinical and scientific world of familial arrhythmogenic conditions was revolutionized by the identification of the first disease-causing genes. The explosion of genetic studies over a 15-year period led to the discovery of major disease-causing genes in practically all channelopathies and cardiomyopathies, bringing insight into the pathophysiological mechanisms of these conditions. The birth of next generation sequencing allowed a further step forward and other significant genes, as CALM1–3 in channelopathies and FLN C and TTN in cardiomyopathies were identified. Genotype–phenotype studies allowed the implementation of the genetic results in diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapeutic management with a different level of evidence in different arrhythmogenic conditions. The influence of common genetic variants, i.e. SNPs, on disease manifestation was proved in mid-twenties, and in the last 10 years with the advent of genome-wide association studies performed in familial arrhythmogenic diseases, the concept of polygenic risk score has been consolidated. Now, we are at the start of another amazing phase, i.e. the initiation of first gene therapy clinical trials.

Abstract Prior to the recognition of distinct clinical entities, such as Brugada syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, and long QT syndrome, all sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) survivors with ventricular fibrillation (VF) and apparently structurally normal hearts were labelled as idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF). Over the last three decades, the definition of IVF has changed substantially, mostly as result of the identification of the spectrum of SCA-predisposing genetic heart diseases (GHDs), and the molecular evidence, by post-mortem genetic analysis (aka, the molecular autopsy), of cardiac channelopathies as the pathogenic basis for up to 35% of unexplained cases of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in the young. The evolution of the definition of IVF over time has led to a progressively greater awareness of the need for an extensive diagnostic assessment in unexplained SCA survivors. Nevertheless, GHDs are still underdiagnosed among SCA survivors, due to the underuse of pharmacological challenges (i.e. sodium channel blocker test), misrecognition of electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities/patterns (i.e. early repolarization pattern or exercise-induced ventricular bigeminy) or errors in the measurement of ECG parameters (e.g. the heart-rate corrected QT interval). In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, diagnostic approaches, and the controversies related to role of the genetic background in unexplained SCA survivors with a default diagnosis of IVF.