AIMS: According to the diagnostic consensus criteria, the electrocardiographic (ECG) diagnosis of Brugada syndrome requires coved-type > or =2 mm ST-segment elevation in >1 right precordial lead (RPL) V1-V3 in the presence or absence of a sodium-channel blocker. However, this consensus has not been evaluated. We aimed to assess the distribution of coved-type ST-segment elevation on RPLs in a large patient cohort to reevaluate the appropriateness of the diagnostic consensus criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 186 individuals with spontaneous and/or drug-induced ECGs of coved-type > or =2 mm ST-segment elevation in at least one RPL. A total of 376 ECGs were analysed for the number, distribution and maximal J-point elevation of diagnostic RPLs. Among all ECGs, 27 (7%) showed a coved-type pattern in 3 RPLs, 205 (55%) in 2 RPLs, and 144 (38%) in only 1 RPL. Leads V1 and V2 were diagnostic in 99% of all ECGs with two diagnostic RPLs. Lead V3 alone was not diagnostic in any ECG. Maximal J-point elevation was significantly higher in lead V2 than V1. Sixty case subjects (32%) had only ECGs with one RPL displaying a coved-type ST-segment elevation. There was no significant difference in clinical presentation and outcome compared with the 126 Brugada patients with ECGs displaying >1 diagnostic RPL. Major arrhythmic events occurred with the same rate (8%) in both groups during a follow-up >5 years. CONCLUSION: Lead V3 does not yield diagnostic information in Brugada syndrome. Individuals with ECGs displaying only one diagnostic RPL have a similar clinical profile and arrhythmic risk as Brugada patients with ECGs displaying >1 diagnostic RPL. Revision of the consensus criteria should be considered.
AIMS: According to the diagnostic consensus criteria, the electrocardiographic (ECG) diagnosis of Brugada syndrome requires coved-type > or =2 mm ST-segment elevation in >1 right precordial lead (RPL) V1-V3 in the presence or absence of a sodium-channel blocker. However, this consensus has not been evaluated. We aimed to assess the distribution of coved-type ST-segment elevation on RPLs in a large patient cohort to reevaluate the appropriateness of the diagnostic consensus criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 186 individuals with spontaneous and/or drug-induced ECGs of coved-type > or =2 mm ST-segment elevation in at least one RPL. A total of 376 ECGs were analysed for the number, distribution and maximal J-point elevation of diagnostic RPLs. Among all ECGs, 27 (7%) showed a coved-type pattern in 3 RPLs, 205 (55%) in 2 RPLs, and 144 (38%) in only 1 RPL. Leads V1 and V2 were diagnostic in 99% of all ECGs with two diagnostic RPLs. Lead V3 alone was not diagnostic in any ECG. Maximal J-point elevation was significantly higher in lead V2 than V1. Sixty case subjects (32%) had only ECGs with one RPL displaying a coved-type ST-segment elevation. There was no significant difference in clinical presentation and outcome compared with the 126 Brugada patients with ECGs displaying >1 diagnostic RPL. Major arrhythmic events occurred with the same rate (8%) in both groups during a follow-up >5 years. CONCLUSION: Lead V3 does not yield diagnostic information in Brugada syndrome. Individuals with ECGs displaying only one diagnostic RPL have a similar clinical profile and arrhythmic risk as Brugada patients with ECGs displaying >1 diagnostic RPL. Revision of the consensus criteria should be considered.
Authors: Charles Antzelevitch; Gan-Xin Yan; Michael J Ackerman; Martin Borggrefe; Domenico Corrado; Jihong Guo; Ihor Gussak; Can Hasdemir; Minoru Horie; Heikki Huikuri; Changsheng Ma; Hiroshi Morita; Gi-Byoung Nam; Frederic Sacher; Wataru Shimizu; Sami Viskin; Arthur A M Wilde Journal: Europace Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 5.214