Citations

Abstract Aims SCN5A-E1784K (c.5350G>A) is the most common variant associated with the long QT (LQTS) and Brugada syndromes (BrS). It can manifest variably as LQTS, BrS, and/or conduction disorders. This presents a challenge for risk stratification. We aimed to describe clinical and ECG characteristics and identify risk markers that associate with arrhythmic events. Methods and results We undertook a retrospective observational multicentre study of a large cohort of 231 subjects with SCN5A-E1784K from Europe, USA, and Japan. Comprehensive demographic and clinical data, including initial presentation ECG and follow-up, were collected. ‘Lethal events’ were defined as sudden death, non-fatal cardiac arrest, and documented sustained VT or VF. ‘Cardiac events’ were defined as arrhythmic syncope plus any lethal events. Clinical characteristics and ECG parameters corrected for age were investigated for association with lethal and/or cardiac events. Fourteen (6%) subjects experienced a lethal event and 45 (19%) a cardiac event. PR interval and QRS duration were associated with lethal and cardiac events. In multivariable models, both PR interval and QRS duration were associated with lethal events, but only QRS duration was associated with cardiac events. Only age-corrected QRS (rQRS) was associated with lethal and cardiac event-free survival from birth after correction for multiple testing. Conclusion Ventricular myocardial conduction appears likely to play a role in the risk of arrhythmic events in patients with SCN5A-E1784K. This provides an important opportunity for the personalization of management and has the potential to guide preventative therapies.

Abstract Background and Aims Stroke and systemic embolism are recognized but poorly characterized complications of atrial fibrillation (AF) and left atrial flutter (AFL) catheter ablation. Their incidence, outcomes, and procedural associations remain insufficiently defined. Methods Retrospective global registry was initiated by the European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Committee. A secure database captured data from ablation centres worldwide on general AF and left AFL ablation activity, as well as detailed information on patients with symptomatic embolic events between 2017 and 2024. Results Overall, 204 centres reported 335 743 ablation procedures and 550 embolic events (incidence 0.16%). Centre-level rate ranged from 0% to 3.1%. Most events were cerebral (94%), followed by peripheral (5%), and combined (1%). Coronary air embolism accounted for 62% of all peripheral events. Intraprocedural events occurred in 93 patients (17%), within 72 h in 357 (78%) and beyond 72 h in 100 (22%); 128 cases (23%) were diagnosed after hospital discharge. Nonparoxysmal AF (0.23% vs 0.15%; P < .001), centre experience, and ablation energy source (radiofrequency, 0.16%; cryoballoon, 0.16%; pulsed field ablation, 0.25%; laserballoon, 0.88%; P < .001) were associated with embolic risk. Median NIHSS score after stroke was 4 (interquartile range, 2–9). Three-month follow-up was available for 518 patients with embolism (95%): 181 (35%) had sequelae and 16 (3%) died. Conclusions Symptomatic embolic events are infrequent but associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Most events occur early, though a substantial proportion arise later. Higher event rates were observed with laser and possibly with pulsed field ablation. A greater centre experience was associated with a lower embolism incidence.

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 Background and Aims Patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) are at risk for potentially life-threatening arrhythmic events (AEs) even while treated with β-blockers. The aim was to develop a model for individualized prediction of AEs in patients with RYR2-mediated CPVT on β-blocker monotherapy. Methods The derivation and independent validation cohorts included 743 and 129 patients, respectively. AEs were defined as arrhythmic syncope, appropriate implantable cardioverter–defibrillator shock, sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), and sudden cardiac death. Near-fatal or fatal AEs (nf/fAEs) included all AEs except for arrhythmic syncope. Prediction models using Cox regression were developed and internally and externally validated. Results A total of 102 (13.7%) patients in the derivation cohort and 24 (18.6%) patients in the validation cohort experienced ≥1 AE over a median follow-up of 5.1 [interquartile range (IQR), 7.7] and 2.4 (IQR, 4.4) years, respectively. Predictors of AE were arrhythmic syncope or SCA prior to diagnosis and age at β-blocker initiation. In the derivation and validation cohorts, the optimism-corrected C-indices of the models for AE were 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62–0.72] and 0.59 (95% CI 0.48–0.71), respectively. For nf/fAEs, ventricular arrhythmia severity before β-blocker initiation was a fourth independent predictor, and C-indices of the models in the derivation and validation cohorts were 0.74 (95% CI 0.68–0.80) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.47–0.72), respectively. In the derivation cohort, calibration slopes were 1.00 (95% CI 0.59–1.41) for AE and 1.00 (95% CI 0.69–1.32) for nf/fAE. Conclusions These externally validated risk prediction models using clinical parameters accurately distinguished CPVT patients on β-blocker monotherapy at low and high risk for future AEs while treated with β-blockers. These models provide guidance for implementation of clinical management therapies to prevent AEs in patients with CPVT.

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.

AbstractOn May 27, 2022, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society and the Heart Rhythm Society convened a meeting of leaders from different professional societies of healthcare providers committed to arrhythmia care from the Asia Pacific region. The overriding goals of the meeting were to discuss clinical and health policy issues that face each country for providing care for patients with electrophysiologic issues, share experiences and best practices, and discuss potential future solutions. Participants were asked to address a series of questions in preparation for the meeting. The format of the meeting was a series of individual country reports presented by the leaders from each of the professional societies followed by open discussion. The recorded presentations from the Asia Summit can be accessed at https://www.heartrhythm365.org/URL/asiasummit‐22. Three major themes arose from the discussion. First, the major clinical problems faced by different countries vary. Although atrial fibrillation is common throughout the region, the most important issues also include more general issues such as hypertension, rheumatic heart disease, tobacco abuse, and management of potentially life‐threatening problems such as sudden cardiac arrest or profound bradycardia. Second, there is significant variability in the access to advanced arrhythmia care throughout the region because of differences in workforce availability, resources, drug availability, and national health policies. Third, collaboration in the area already occurs between individual countries, but no systematic regional method for working together is present.

ImportanceSyncope is the most powerful predictor for subsequent life-threatening events (LTEs) in patients with congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS). Whether distinct syncope triggers are associated with differential subsequent risk of LTEs is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between adrenergic (AD)– and nonadrenergic (non–AD)-triggered syncopal events and the risk of subsequent LTEs in patients with LQT types 1 to 3 (LQT1-3).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study included data from 5 international LQTS registries (Rochester, New York; the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Israel, the Netherlands, and Japan). The study population comprised 2938 patients with genetically confirmed LQT1, LQT2, or LQT3 stemming from a single LQTS-causative variant. Patients were enrolled from July 1979 to July 2021.ExposuresSyncope by AD and non-AD triggers.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was the first occurrence of an LTE. Multivariate Cox regression was used to determine the association of AD- or non–AD-triggered syncope on the risk of subsequent LTE by genotype. Separate analysis was performed in patients with β-blockers.ResultsA total of 2938 patients were included (mean [SD] age at enrollment, 29 [7] years; 1645 [56%] female). In 1331 patients with LQT1, a first syncope occurred in 365 (27%) and was induced mostly with AD triggers (243 [67%]). Syncope preceded 43 subsequent LTEs (68%). Syncopal episodes associated with AD triggers were associated with the highest risk of subsequent LTE (hazard ratio [HR], 7.61; 95% CI, 4.18-14.20; P < .001), whereas the risk associated with syncopal events due to non-AD triggers was statistically nonsignificant (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.21-4.77; P = .97). In 1106 patients with LQT2, a first syncope occurred in 283 (26%) and was associated with AD and non-AD triggers in 106 (37%) and 177 (63%), respectively. Syncope preceded 55 LTEs (56%). Both AD- and non–AD-triggered syncope were associated with a greater than 3-fold increased risk of subsequent LTE (HR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.66-5.67; P ≤ .001 and HR, 3.45, 95% CI, 1.96-6.06; P ≤ .001, respectively). In contrast, in 501 patients with LQT3, LTE was preceded by a syncopal episode in 7 (12%). In patients with LQT1 and LQT2, treatment with β-blockers following a syncopal event was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of subsequent LTEs. The rate of breakthrough events during treatment with β-blockers was significantly higher among those treated with selective agents vs nonselective agents.Conclusion and RelevanceIn this study, trigger-specific syncope in LQTS patients was associated with differential risk of subsequent LTE and response to β-blocker therapy.