Role of Provocable Brugada ECG Pattern in The Correct Risk Stratification for Major Arrhythmic Events.

The so-called Brugada syndrome (BS), first called precordial early repolarization syndrome (PERS), is characterized by the association of a fascinating electrocardiographic pattern, namely an aspect resembling right bundle branch block with a coved and sometime upsloping ST segment elevation in the precordial leads, and major ventricular arrhythmic events that could rarely lead to sudden death. Its electrogenesis has been related to a conduction delay mostly, but not only, located on the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), probably due to a progressive fibrosis of the conduction system. Many tests have been proposed to identify people at risk of sudden death and, among all, ajmaline challenge, thanks to its ability to enhance latent conduction defects, became so popular, even if its role is still controversial as it is neither specific nor sensitive enough to guide further invasive investigations and managements. Interestingly, a type 1 pattern has also been induced in many other cardiac diseases or systemic diseases with a cardiac involvement, such as long QT syndrome (LQTS), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and myotonic dystrophy, without any clear arrhythmic risk profile. Evidence-based studies clearly showed that a positive ajmaline test does not provide any additional information on the risk stratification for major ventricular arrhythmic events on asymptomatic individuals with a non-diagnostic Brugada ECG pattern.

Intermuscular Two-Incision Technique for Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation: Results from a Multicenter Registry.

BACKGROUND: The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, which involves three incisions and a subcutaneous pocket, is associated with possible complications, including inappropriate interventions. The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an alternative intermuscular two-incision technique for S-ICD implantation. METHODS: The study population included 36 consecutive patients (75% male, mean age 44 ± 12 years [range 20-69]) who underwent S-ICD implantation using the intermuscular two-incision technique. This technique avoids the superior parasternal incision for the lead placement and consists of creating an intermuscular pocket between the anterior surface of the serratus anterior and the posterior surface of the latissimus dorsi muscles instead of a subcutaneous pocket. RESULTS: All patients were successfully implanted in the absence of any procedure-related complications with a successful 65-J standard polarity defibrillation threshold testing, except in one, who received a second successful shock after pocket revision. During a mean follow-up of 10 months (range 3-30), no complications requiring surgical revision were observed. At device interrogation, stable sensing without interferences was observed in all patients. Two patients (5.5%) experienced appropriate and successful shock on ventricular fibrillation and in four patients (11%), a total of seven nonsustained self-terminated ventricular tachycardias were correctly detected. No inappropriate interventions were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that the two-incision intermuscular technique is a safe and efficacious alternative to the current technique for S-ICD implantation that may help reducing complications including inappropriate interventions and offer a better cosmetic outcome, especially in thin individuals.

Intraoperative defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion: do we really need it?

BACKGROUND: The assessment of defibrillation efficacy using a safety margin of 10 J has long been the standard of care for insertion of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), but physicians are concerned about complications related to induction test. Therefore, the need for testing has been recently questioned. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing of ICD on the efficacy of ICD therapy. METHODS: We analyzed data obtained from follow-up visits of 122 consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation at our institute from April 1996 to June 2008, with (n = 42) or without (n = 80) DFT testing. Patients in the DFT group were less likely to be men (83.3% vs 96.3%, P < .031) than those in the non-DFT group. Conversely, the 2 groups were similar in age, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, functional class, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Results during a 12-month follow-up, 13 (31.0%) and 30 (37.5%) ventricular tachyarrhythmic episodes were recorded in the DFT and non-DFT groups, respectively (P = .472). Antitachycardia pacing (ATP) terminated most of episodes, reducing the need of defibrillation at 7.7% in the DFT group and 3.3% in the non-DFT group (P = .533). Similar percentages of inappropriate ATP interventions (7.1% vs 3.8%, P = .413) and shock deliveries (2.4% vs 5.0%, P = .659) were recorded between DFT and non-DFT groups. CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year follow-up, the performance of DFT testing does not seem to add any significant efficacy advantage in patients undergoing ICD implantation. Prospective randomized trials and long-term follow-up are warranted to clarify whether routine DFT testing may be safely abandoned leading to a revision of current guidelines.