Arrhythmic risk prediction in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy : external validation of the arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy risk calculator

Aims: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) causes ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) and sudden cardiac death (SCD). In 2019, a risk prediction model that estimates the 5-year risk of incident VAs in ARVC was developed (ARVCrisk.com). This study aimed to externally validate this prediction model in a large international multicentre cohort and to compare its performance with the risk factor approach recommended for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) use by published guidelines and expert consensus. Methods and results: In a retrospective cohort of 429 individuals from 29 centres in North America and Europe, 103 (24%) experienced sustained VA during a median follow-up of 5.02 (2.05-7.90) years following diagnosis of ARVC. External validation yielded good discrimination [C-index of 0.70 (95% confidence interval-CI 0.65-0.75)] and calibration slope of 1.01 (95% CI 0.99-1.03). Compared with the three published consensus-based decision algorithms for ICD use in ARVC (Heart Rhythm Society consensus on arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, International Task Force consensus statement on the treatment of ARVC, and American Heart Association guidelines for VA and SCD), the risk calculator performed better with a superior net clinical benefit below risk threshold of 35%. Conclusion: Using a large independent cohort of patients, this study shows that the ARVC risk model provides good prognostic information and outperforms other published decision algorithms for ICD use. These findings support the use of the model to facilitate shared decision making regarding ICD implantation in the primary prevention of SCD in ARVC

Programmed Electrophysiological Stimulation for Risk Prediction in Patients with Brugada Syndrome: Closing Time?,La estimulacion electrica programada para la prediccion del riesgo en pacientes con sindrome de Brugada: ?tiempo de cierre?

En un reciente artículo publicado en Revista Española de Cardiología, Rodríguez-Mañero et al.1 presentan su experiencia en la validación de 3 puntuaciones multiparamétricas diferentes propuestas a lo largo de la última década para ayudar a predecir el riesgo de muerte súbita cardiaca (MSC)2–4 en pacientes con síndrome de Brugada (SBr). La población de esta cohorte retrospectiva multicéntrica la formaron 831 pacientes con SBr de los que se llevó a cabo un estudio electrofisiológico (EFS) con estimulación eléctrica programada (EEP) y un seguimiento clínico durante una media de 10 años. El hallazgo clave del estudio fue que las 3 puntuaciones tenían una capacidad predictiva solo moderada, principalmente al aplicarlas a pacientes asintomáticos1. Los resultados obtenidos tienen interés, ya que el uso de desfibriladores automáticos implantables (DAI) continúa siendo la única opción para proteger a los pacientes con SBr que presentan un riesgo de MSC «suficientemente alto». Sin embargo, la decisión de implantar un DAI debe ponderarse cuidadosamente, ya que no está exenta de consecuencias

Arrhythmic Mitral Valve Prolapse: Introducing an Era of Multimodality Imaging-Based Diagnosis and Risk Stratification.

Mitral valve prolapse is a common cardiac condition, with an estimated prevalence between 1% and 3%. Most patients have a benign course, but ever since its initial description mitral valve prolapse has been associated to sudden cardiac death. Although the causal relationship between mitral valve prolapse and sudden cardiac death has never been clearly demonstrated, different factors have been implicated in arrhythmogenesis in patients with mitral valve prolapse. In this work, we offer a comprehensive overview of the etiology and the genetic background, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and we focus on the state-of-the-art imaging-based diagnosis of mitral valve prolapse. Going beyond the classical, well-described clinical factors, such as young age, female gender and auscultatory findings, we investigate multimodality imaging features, such as alterations of anatomy and function of the mitral valve and its leaflets, the structural and contractile anomalies of the myocardium, all of which have been associated to sudden cardiac deat

Outcomes of Patients with Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia Treated with β-Blockers

Importance: Patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) may experience life-threatening arrhythmic events (LTAEs) despite β-blocker treatment. Further complicating management, the role of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in CPVT is debated. Objective: To investigate the long-term outcomes of patients with RYR2 CPVT treated with β-blockers only and the cost to benefit ratio of ICD. Design, Settings, and Participants: This prospective cohort study conducted from January 1988 to October 2020 with a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.4 (7.5) years included patients who were referred to the Molecular Cardiology Clinics of ICS Maugeri Hospital, Pavia, Italy. Participants included consecutive patients with CPVT who were carriers of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic RYR2 variant with long-term clinical follow-up. Exposures: Treatment with selective and nonselective β-blocker only and ICD implant when indicated. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was the occurrence of the first LTAE while taking a β-blocker. LTAE was defined as a composite of 3 hard end points: sudden cardiac death, aborted cardiac arrest, and hemodynamically nontolerated ventricular tachycardia. Results: The cohort included 216 patients with RYR2 CPVT (121 of 216 female [55%], median [IQR] age 14, [9-30] years). During a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.4 (7.5) years taking β-blockers only, 28 of 216 patients (13%) experienced an LTAE (annual rate, 1.9%; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7). In multivariable analysis, experiencing either an LTAE (hazard ratio [HR], 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2-8.9; P =.02) or syncope before diagnosis (HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.8-11.1; P =.001) and carrying a C-terminal domain variant (HR, 18.1; 95% CI, 4.1-80.8; P <.001) were associated with an increased LTAE risk during β-blocker therapy only. The risk of LTAE among those taking selective β-blockers vs nadolol was increased 6-fold (HR, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.1-16.3; P =.001). Conversely, no significant difference was present between propranolol and nadolol (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.4-7.3; P =.44). An ICD was implanted in 79 of 216 patients (37%) who were followed up for a mean (SD) of 8.6 (6.3) years. At the occurrence of LTAE, ICD carriers were more likely to survive (18 of 18 [100%]) than non-ICD carriers (6 of 10 [60%]; P =.01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, selective β-blockers were associated with a higher risk of LTAE as compared with nadolol. Independently from treatment, LTAE and syncope before diagnosis and C-terminal domain variants identified patients at higher risk of β-blocker failure, and the ICD was associated with reduced mortality in high-risk patients with CPVT

Outcomes of Patients With Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia Treated With β-Blockers

Importance: Patients with catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) may experience life-threatening arrhythmic events (LTAEs) despite β-blocker treatment. Further complicating management, the role of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in CPVT is debated. Objective: To investigate the long-term outcomes of patients with RYR2 CPVT treated with β-blockers only and the cost to benefit ratio of ICD. Design, settings, and participants: This prospective cohort study conducted from January 1988 to October 2020 with a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.4 (7.5) years included patients who were referred to the Molecular Cardiology Clinics of ICS Maugeri Hospital, Pavia, Italy. Participants included consecutive patients with CPVT who were carriers of a pathogenic or likely pathogenic RYR2 variant with long-term clinical follow-up. Exposures: Treatment with selective and nonselective β-blocker only and ICD implant when indicated. Main outcome and measures: The main outcome was the occurrence of the first LTAE while taking a β-blocker. LTAE was defined as a composite of 3 hard end points: sudden cardiac death, aborted cardiac arrest, and hemodynamically nontolerated ventricular tachycardia. Results: The cohort included 216 patients with RYR2 CPVT (121 of 216 female [55%], median [IQR] age 14, [9-30] years). During a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.4 (7.5) years taking β-blockers only, 28 of 216 patients (13%) experienced an LTAE (annual rate, 1.9%; 95% CI, 1.3-2.7). In multivariable analysis, experiencing either an LTAE (hazard ratio [HR], 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2-8.9; P = .02) or syncope before diagnosis (HR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.8-11.1; P = .001) and carrying a C-terminal domain variant (HR, 18.1; 95% CI, 4.1-80.8; P < .001) were associated with an increased LTAE risk during β-blocker therapy only. The risk of LTAE among those taking selective β-blockers vs nadolol was increased 6-fold (HR, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.1-16.3; P = .001). Conversely, no significant difference was present between propranolol and nadolol (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.4-7.3; P = .44). An ICD was implanted in 79 of 216 patients (37%) who were followed up for a mean (SD) of 8.6 (6.3) years. At the occurrence of LTAE, ICD carriers were more likely to survive (18 of 18 [100%]) than non-ICD carriers (6 of 10 [60%]; P = .01). Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study, selective β-blockers were associated with a higher risk of LTAE as compared with nadolol. Independently from treatment, LTAE and syncope before diagnosis and C-terminal domain variants identified patients at higher risk of β-blocker failure, and the ICD was associated with reduced mortality in high-risk patients with CPVT

Natural History and Risk Stratification in Andersen-Tawil Syndrome Type 1

Background: Andersen-Tawil Syndrome type 1 (ATS1) is a rare arrhythmogenic disorder, caused by loss-of-function mutations in the KCNJ2 gene. We present here the largest cohort of patients with ATS1 with outcome data reported. Objectives: This study sought to define the risk of life-threatening arrhythmic events (LAE), identify predictors of such events, and define the efficacy of antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with ATS1. Methods: Clinical and genetic data from consecutive patients with ATS1 from 23 centers were entered in a database implemented at ICS Maugeri in Pavia, Italy, and pooled for analysis. Results: We enrolled 118 patients with ATS1 from 57 families (age 23 \ub1 17 years at enrollment). Over a median follow-up of 6.2 years (interquartile range: 2.7 to 16.5 years), 17 patients experienced a first LAE, with a cumulative probability of 7.9% at 5 years. An increased risk of LAE was associated with a history of syncope (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.54; p = 0.02), with the documentation of sustained ventricular tachycardia (HR 9.34; p = 0.001) and with the administration of amiodarone (HR: 268; p &lt; 0.001). The rate of LAE without therapy (1.24 per 100 person-years [py]) was not reduced by beta-blockers alone (1.37 per 100 py; p = 1.00), or in combination with Class Ic antiarrhythmic drugs (1.46 per 100 py, p = 1.00). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that the clinical course of patients with ATS1 is characterized by a high rate of LAE. A history of unexplained syncope or of documented sustained ventricular tachycardia is associated with a higher risk of LAE. Amiodarone is proarrhythmic and should be avoided in patients with ATS1