| Literature DB >> 31590333 |
Daniel García-Iglesias1,2, Francisco Javier de Cos3, Francisco Javier Romero4, Srujana Polana5, José Manuel Rubín6,7, Diego Pérez8,9, Julián Reguero10,11, Jesús María de la Hera12,13, Pablo Avanzas14,15, Juan Gómez16,17, Eliecer Coto18,19, César Morís20,21, David Calvo22,23,24,25.
Abstract
(1) Background: The clinical management of Brugada Syndrome (BrS) remains suboptimal. (2) Objective: To explore the role of standard electrocardiogram (ECG) spectral analysis in diagnosis and risk stratification. (3)Entities:
Keywords: Brugada syndrome; diagnosis; prognosis; spectral analysis; sudden cardiac death
Year: 2019 PMID: 31590333 PMCID: PMC6833061 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8101629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Example of a wavelet continuous transform on a QRS complex (frequency range: 85–130 Hz). Panel A: Power spectrum of the QRS complex. Panel B: Total high-frequency content at each time epoch. The brown dotted line marks the Peak Power. Panel C & D: Cumulative power of the high-frequency content along the QRS and ST interval. The colored dotted lines mark the Total QRS and ST Power respectively.
Comparison of clinical variables between groups.
| Spont-BrS | Induc-BrS | NR Patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Age (years) | 44.05 (12.3) | 43.61 (14.51) | 38.64 (14.98) |
|
| Male gender (%) | 30 (90.7) | 70 (62.5) | 137 (75.28) |
|
| Family history of SCD at age <45 years (%) | 18 (41.86) | 68 (60.71) | 73 (40.11) |
|
| Syncope (%) | 11 (25.58) | 28 (25) | 56 (30.77) | 0.521 |
| Cardiac syncope (%) | 7 (16.28) | 12 (10.71) | 5 (2.75) |
|
| SCA (%) | 5 (11.63) | 9 (8.04) | 1 (0.549) |
|
| Smoker (%) | 12 (27.9) | 29 (25.89) | 47 (25.82) | 0.96 |
| Hypertension (%) | 7 (16.28) | 18 (16.07) | 21 (11.54) | 0.473 |
| Diabetes mellitus (%) | 1 (2.33) | 4 (3.57) | 3 (1.65) | 0.575 |
| Dyslipidemia (%) | 8 (18.61) | 22 (19.64) | 14 (7.69) |
|
| Cardiomyopathy (%) † | 3 (6.98) | 3 (2.68) | 9 (4.95) | 0.455 |
| Cardiovascular drugs (%) ‡ | 11 (25.58) | 18 (16.07) | 23 (12.64) | 0.104 |
| PES Test performed | 26 (60.47) | 37 (33.04) | 3 (1.65) |
|
| Positive PES | 8 (18.6) | 4 (3.57) | 0 (0) |
|
| ICD implanted | 22 (51.16) | 23 (20.54) | 2 (1.1) |
|
|
| ||||
| BrS type I (%) | 38 (88.37) | 0 | 0 |
|
| BrS type II (%) | 3 (6.98) | 59 (52.68) | 36 (19.78) |
|
| BrS type III (%) | 0 | 22 (19.64) | 39 (21.43) |
|
| BrS type II–III (%) | 3 (6.98) | 81 (72.62) | 75 (41.21) |
|
| Normal (%) | 0 | 25 (22.32) | 75 (41.21 |
|
† All the cases displayed discrete left ventricle hypertrophy due to hypertension. ‡ All the cases on anti-hypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs. BrS: Brugada syndrome; SCA: sudden cardiac arrest; SCD: sudden cardiac death; Spont-BRS: spontaneous BrS patients; Induc-BRS: drug-induced BrS patients; NR: negative responder patients; PES: programmed electrical stimulation.
Figure 2High-frequency content along precordial leads; Comparison between BrS patients and NR. Panel A: Total Power in the QT interval. Panel B: Total Power in the QRS interval. Panel C: Total Power in the ST interval.
Comparative analysis of the high-frequency content between different clinical conditions.
| Spont-BrS | Induct-BrS | NR Patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Peak Power | 0.734 | 1.439 | 0.871 | 0.677 |
| Total Power | 46.693 | 62.188 | 32.161 | 0.095 |
| Total QRS Power | 18.567 | 35.553 | 21.031 | 0.623 |
| Total ST Power | 28.126 | 26.635 | 11.13 | 0.002 |
| QRS to ST Total Power | 5.256 | 5.762 | 9.724 | 0.045 |
|
| ||||
| Peak Power | 0.897 | 1.705 | 0.917 | 0.468 |
| Total Power | 84.216 | 100.581 | 43.111 | 0.017 |
| Total QRS Power | 25.48 | 46.147 | 25.35 | 0.451 |
| Total ST Power | 58.736 | 54.434 | 17.761 | 0.003 |
| QRS to ST Total Power | 4.142 | 4.06 | 6.023 | 0.133 |
Figures within brackets denote the 95% confidence interval (CI95%). Units for Peak Power, Total Power, Total QRS Power, and Total ST Power are expressed as 103nV2Hz−1.
Comparative analysis of the high-frequency content between different electrocardiogram (ECG) patterns and clinical conditions.
| ECG Type I | ECG Type II or III | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BrS Patients | BrS Patients | NR Patients |
| |
|
| ||||
| Peak Power | 0.629 | 1.518 | 1.07 | 0.517 |
| Total Power | 47.415 | 69.721 | 36.259 | 0.121 |
| Total QRS Power | 16.665 | 38.651 | 25.458 | 0.446 |
| Total ST Power | 30.75 | 31.07 | 10.8 | 0.007 |
| QRS to ST Total Power | 3.849 | 5.853 | 12.132 | 0.055 |
|
| ||||
| Peak Power | 0.886 | 1.948 | 1.209 | 0.355 |
| Total Power | 89.832 | 120.243 | 51.683 | 0.033 |
| Total QRS Power | 25.041 | 53.695 | 32.757 | 0.324 |
| Total ST Power | 64.791 | 66.549 | 18.926 | 0.01 |
| QRS to ST Total Power | 3.471 | 4.284 | 7.666 | 0.125 |
Figures within brackets denote the CI95%. Units for Peak Power, Total Power, Total QRS Power, and Total ST Power are expressed as 103nV2Hz−1.
Results of the Univariate and Multivariate analyses.
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR |
| HR |
| |
|
| ||||
| Peak Power | 3.251 (0.8–13.209) | 0.099 | ||
| Total Power | 1.054 (1.019–1.091) | 0.003 | ||
| Total QRS Power | 1.045 (0.991–1.102) | 0.101 | ||
| Total ST Power | 1.106 (1.043–1.174) | 0.001 | 1.251 (1.082–1.447) | 0.003 |
| QRS to ST Total Power ratio | 0.678 (0.407–1.13) | 0.136 | ||
| Age | 1.005 (1.002–1.009) | 0.006 | 1.005 (1.001–1.008) | 0.014 |
| Male | 0.865 (0.766–0.977) | 0.02 | 0.925 (0.814–1.05) | 0.225 |
| Familiar History of SCD | 1.215 (1.089–1.356) | 0.001 | ||
| Familiar History of BrS | 1.203 (1.066–1.358) | 0.003 | 1.158 (1.019–1.317) | 0.025 |
| Syncope | 0.936 (0.827–1.059) | 0.289 | 0.914 (0.81–1.032) | 0.146 |
|
| ||||
| Peak Power | 0.997 (0.414–2.398) | 0.994 | ||
| Total Power | 1.011 (0.991–1.031) | 0.285 | ||
| Total QRS Power | 0.999 (0.967–1.033) | 0.967 | ||
| Total ST Power | 1.025 (0.996–1.056) | 0.096 | 1.041 (0.966–1.123) | 0.291 |
| QRS to ST Total Power ratio | 0.536 (0.27–1.065) | 0.075 | ||
| Age | 1 (0.997–1.003) | 0.905 | ||
| Spontaneous Type I Pattern | 1.037 (0.936–1.148) | 0.488 | 1.026 (0.923–1.141) | 0.629 |
| Male | 1.036 (0.938–1.145) | 0.482 | 1.041 (0.939–1.155) | 0.441 |
| Familiar History of SCD | 0.955 (0.871–1.047) | 0.322 | 0.951 (0.869–1.041) | 0.278 |
| Familiar History of BrS | 0.928 (0.842–1.023) | 0.133 | ||
| Syncope | 1.206 (1.09–1.335) | <0.001 | 1.197 (1.079–1.329) | 0.001 |
| Positive PES | 0.907 (0.765–1.075) | 0.259 | 0.898 (0.756–1.067) | 0.219 |
| SCN5a Mutation | 0.96 (0.86–1.073) | 0.472 | 0.975 (0.873–1.089) | 0.652 |
Numbers within brackets denote the CI95%.
Figure 3Comparative received operator curve (ROC) curve analysis from multivariate models. Panel A: ROC curve for BrS diagnosis during the drug testing. Panel B: ROC curve for arrhythmic event prediction.
Figure 4Effects of drug infusion on the high-frequency content of the QT interval for right precordial leads. Panel A: Total Power and attenuation of Total Power in Brugada patients and NR. Panel B: ST Power and attenuation of ST Power in Brugada patients and NR.