Heart rhythm · 2016
Prognostic significance of fever-induced Brugada syndrome.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mizusawa Yuka, Morita Hiroshi, Adler Arnon, Havakuk Ofer, Thollet Aurélie, Maury Philippe, Wang Dao W, Hong Kui, Gandjbakhch Estelle, Sacher Frédéric, Hu Dan, Amin Ahmad S, Lahrouchi Najim, Tan Hanno L, Antzelevitch Charles, Probst Vincent, Viskin Sami, Wilde Arthur A M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In Brugada syndrome (BrS), spontaneous type 1 electrocardiogram (ECG) is an established risk marker for fatal arrhythmias whereas drug-induced type 1 ECG shows a relatively benign prognosis. No study has analyzed the prognosis of fever-induced type 1 ECG (F-type1) in a large BrS cohort.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess the prognosis of F-type1 in asymptomatic BrS and to compare the effects of fever and drugs on ECG parameters.
METHODS: One hundred twelve patients with BrS who developed F-type1 were retrospectively enrolled. Prognosis was evaluated in 88 asymptomatic patients. In a subgroup (n = 52), ECG parameters of multiple ECGs (at baseline, during fever, and after drug challenge) were analyzed.
RESULTS: Eighty-eight asymptomatic patients had a mean age of 45.8 ± 18.7 years, and 71.6% (67 of 88) were men. Twenty-one percent (18 of 88) had a family history of sudden cardiac death, and 26.4% (14 of 53) carried a pathogenic SCN5A mutation. Drug challenge was positive in 29 of 36 patients tested (80.6%). The risk of ventricular fibrillation in asymptomatic patients was 0.9%/y (3 of 88; 43.6 ± 37.4 months). ST-segment elevation in lead V2 during fever and after drug challenge was not significantly different (0.41 ± 0.21 ms during fever and 0.40 ± 0.30 ms after drug challenge; P > .05). Fever shortened the PR interval compared to baseline, whereas drug challenge resulted in prolonged PR interval and QRS duration (PR interval: 169 ± 29 ms at baseline, 148 ± 45 ms during fever, and 202 ± 35 ms after drug challenge; QRS duration: 97 ± 18 ms at baseline, 92 ± 28 ms during fever, and 117 ± 21 ms after drug challenge).
CONCLUSION: Patients with BrS who develop F-type1 are at risk of arrhythmic events. F-type1 appears to develop through a more complex mechanism as compared with drug-induced type 1 ECG.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess the prognosis of F-type1 in asymptomatic BrS and to compare the effects of fever and drugs on ECG parameters.
METHODS: One hundred twelve patients with BrS who developed F-type1 were retrospectively enrolled. Prognosis was evaluated in 88 asymptomatic patients. In a subgroup (n = 52), ECG parameters of multiple ECGs (at baseline, during fever, and after drug challenge) were analyzed.
RESULTS: Eighty-eight asymptomatic patients had a mean age of 45.8 ± 18.7 years, and 71.6% (67 of 88) were men. Twenty-one percent (18 of 88) had a family history of sudden cardiac death, and 26.4% (14 of 53) carried a pathogenic SCN5A mutation. Drug challenge was positive in 29 of 36 patients tested (80.6%). The risk of ventricular fibrillation in asymptomatic patients was 0.9%/y (3 of 88; 43.6 ± 37.4 months). ST-segment elevation in lead V2 during fever and after drug challenge was not significantly different (0.41 ± 0.21 ms during fever and 0.40 ± 0.30 ms after drug challenge; P > .05). Fever shortened the PR interval compared to baseline, whereas drug challenge resulted in prolonged PR interval and QRS duration (PR interval: 169 ± 29 ms at baseline, 148 ± 45 ms during fever, and 202 ± 35 ms after drug challenge; QRS duration: 97 ± 18 ms at baseline, 92 ± 28 ms during fever, and 117 ± 21 ms after drug challenge).
CONCLUSION: Patients with BrS who develop F-type1 are at risk of arrhythmic events. F-type1 appears to develop through a more complex mechanism as compared with drug-induced type 1 ECG.