Tadros, Rafik

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.

Precision medicine, which among other aspects includes an individual's genomic data in diagnosis and management, has become the standard‐of‐care for Mendelian cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, early identification and management of asymptomatic patients with potentially lethal and manageable Mendelian CVD through screening, which is the promise of precision health, remains an unsolved challenge. The reduced costs of genomic sequencing have enabled the creation of biobanks containing in‐depth genetic and health information, which have facilitated the understanding of genetic variation, penetrance, and expressivity, moving us closer to the genotype‐first screening of asymptomatic individuals for Mendelian CVD. This approach could transform health care by diagnostic refinement and facilitating prevention or therapeutic interventions. Yet, potential benefits must be weighed against the potential risks, which include evolving variant pathogenicity assertion or identification of variants with low disease penetrance; costly, stressful, and inappropriate diagnostic evaluations; negative psychological impact; disqualification for employment or of competitive sports; and denial of insurance. Furthermore, the natural history of Mendelian CVD is often unpredictable, making identification of those who will benefit from preventive measures a priority. Currently, there is insufficient evidence that population‐based genetic screening for Mendelian CVD can reduce adverse outcomes at a reasonable cost to an extent that outweighs the harms of true‐positive and false‐positive results. Besides technical, clinical, and financial burdens, ethical and legal aspects pose unprecedented challenges. This review highlights key developments in the field of genotype‐first approaches to Mendelian CVD and summarizes challenges with potential solutions that can pave the way for implementing this approach for clinical care.