Assessment of noninvasive markers in identifying patients at risk in the brugada syndrome: insight into risk stratification

AbstractOBJECTIVESThe aim of this study was to compare the use of various noninvasive markers for detecting risk of life-threatening arrhythmic events in patients with Brugada syndrome.BACKGROUNDThe role of conduction disturbance in arrhythmogenesis of the syndrome is controversial, whereas it is well established that repolarization abnormalities are responsible for arrhythmias. The value of noninvasive markers reflecting conduction or repolarization abnormalities in identifying patients at risk for significant arrhythmias has not been shown.METHODSWe assessed late potentials (LP) using signal-averaged electrocardiography (ECG), microvolt T-wave alternans (TWA), and corrected QT-interval dispersion (QTD) in 44 consecutive patients who had ECGs showing a pattern of right bundle branch block and ST-segment elevation in leads V1to V3but structurally normal hearts. The patients were compared with 30 normal individuals.RESULTSEleven patients were excluded from data analysis because of an absence of ECG manifestations of Brugada syndrome at the time of the tests. A history of life-threatening events defined as syncope and aborted sudden death was present in 19 of 33 patients (58%); in 15 of the 19 patients, stimulation induced ventricular fibrillation or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. The LP were present in 24 of 33 patients (73%); TWA were present in 5 of 31 patients (16%); and a QTD >50 ms was present in 9 of 33 patients (27%). The incidence of LP in Brugada patients was significantly (p < 0.0001) higher than in the controls, whereas incidences of TWA and QTD were not significantly different. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the presence of LP had the most significant correlation to the occurrence of life-threatening events (p = 0.006).CONCLUSIONSLate potentials are a noninvasive risk stratifier in patients with Brugada syndrome. These results may support the idea that conduction disturbance per se is arrhythmogenic