Comparison of Ajmaline and Procainamide Provocation Tests in the Diagnosis of Brugada Syndrome.


Journal

JACC. Clinical electrophysiology
ISSN: 2405-5018
Titre abrégé: JACC Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101656995

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2019
Historique:
received: 29 10 2018
revised: 02 01 2019
accepted: 31 01 2019
entrez: 20 4 2019
pubmed: 20 4 2019
medline: 4 7 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The authors studied the response rates and relative sensitivity of the most common agents used in the sodium-channel blocker (SCB) challenge. A type 1 Brugada electrocardiographic pattern precipitated by an SCB challenge confers a diagnosis of Brugada syndrome. Patients undergoing an SCB challenge were prospectively enrolled across Canada and the United Kingdom. Patients with no prior cardiac arrest and family histories of sudden cardiac death or Brugada syndrome were included. Four hundred twenty-five subjects underwent SCB challenge (ajmaline, n = 331 [78%]; procainamide, n = 94 [22%]), with a mean age of 39 ± 15 years (54% men). Baseline non-type 1 Brugada ST-segment elevation was present in 10%. A total of 154 patients (36%) underwent signal-averaged electrocardiography, with 41% having late potentials. Positive results were seen more often with ajmaline than procainamide infusion (26% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, baseline non-type 1 Brugada ST-segment elevation (odds ratio [OR]: 6.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.15 to 15.2; p < 0.001) and ajmaline use (OR: 8.76; 95% CI: 2.62 to 29.2; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of positive results to SCB challenge. In the subgroup undergoing signal-averaged electrocardiography, non-type 1 Brugada ST-segment elevation (OR: 9.28; 95% CI: 2.22 to 38.8; p = 0.002), late potentials on signal-averaged electrocardiography (OR: 4.32; 95% CI: 1.50 to 12.5; p = 0.007), and ajmaline use (OR: 12.0; 95% CI: 2.45 to 59.1; p = 0.002) were strong predictors of SCB outcome. The outcome of SCB challenge was significantly affected by the drug used, with ajmaline more likely to provoke a type 1 Brugada electrocardiographic pattern compared with procainamide. Patients undergoing SCB challenge may have contrasting results depending on the drug used, with potential clinical, psychosocial, and socioeconomic implications.

Sections du résumé

OBJECTIVES
The authors studied the response rates and relative sensitivity of the most common agents used in the sodium-channel blocker (SCB) challenge.
BACKGROUND
A type 1 Brugada electrocardiographic pattern precipitated by an SCB challenge confers a diagnosis of Brugada syndrome.
METHODS
Patients undergoing an SCB challenge were prospectively enrolled across Canada and the United Kingdom. Patients with no prior cardiac arrest and family histories of sudden cardiac death or Brugada syndrome were included.
RESULTS
Four hundred twenty-five subjects underwent SCB challenge (ajmaline, n = 331 [78%]; procainamide, n = 94 [22%]), with a mean age of 39 ± 15 years (54% men). Baseline non-type 1 Brugada ST-segment elevation was present in 10%. A total of 154 patients (36%) underwent signal-averaged electrocardiography, with 41% having late potentials. Positive results were seen more often with ajmaline than procainamide infusion (26% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, baseline non-type 1 Brugada ST-segment elevation (odds ratio [OR]: 6.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.15 to 15.2; p < 0.001) and ajmaline use (OR: 8.76; 95% CI: 2.62 to 29.2; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of positive results to SCB challenge. In the subgroup undergoing signal-averaged electrocardiography, non-type 1 Brugada ST-segment elevation (OR: 9.28; 95% CI: 2.22 to 38.8; p = 0.002), late potentials on signal-averaged electrocardiography (OR: 4.32; 95% CI: 1.50 to 12.5; p = 0.007), and ajmaline use (OR: 12.0; 95% CI: 2.45 to 59.1; p = 0.002) were strong predictors of SCB outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
The outcome of SCB challenge was significantly affected by the drug used, with ajmaline more likely to provoke a type 1 Brugada electrocardiographic pattern compared with procainamide. Patients undergoing SCB challenge may have contrasting results depending on the drug used, with potential clinical, psychosocial, and socioeconomic implications.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31000106
pii: S2405-500X(19)30149-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2019.01.026
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel Blockers 0
Ajmaline 1PON08459R
Procainamide L39WTC366D

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

504-512

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Christopher C Cheung (CC)

Division of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Greg Mellor (G)

Cardiology Clinical Academic Group, St. George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Marc W Deyell (MW)

Division of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Bode Ensam (B)

Cardiology Clinical Academic Group, St. George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Velislav Batchvarov (V)

Cardiology Clinical Academic Group, St. George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Michael Papadakis (M)

Cardiology Clinical Academic Group, St. George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Jason D Roberts (JD)

Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Richard Leather (R)

Division of Cardiology, Royal Jubilee Hospital, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Shubhayan Sanatani (S)

Children's Heart Centre, Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Jeffrey S Healey (JS)

Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Vijay S Chauhan (VS)

Toronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

David H Birnie (DH)

University of Ottawa Heart Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Jean Champagne (J)

Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.

Paul Angaran (P)

Division of Cardiology, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

George J Klein (GJ)

Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Raymond Yee (R)

Section of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Division of Cardiology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Christopher S Simpson (CS)

Division of Cardiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

Mario Talajic (M)

Institut de Cardiologie de Montréal, Département of Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Martin Gardner (M)

Division of Cardiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

John A Yeung-Lai-Wah (JA)

Division of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Santabhanu Chakrabarti (S)

Division of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Zachary W Laksman (ZW)

Division of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Sanjay Sharma (S)

Cardiology Clinical Academic Group, St. George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Elijah R Behr (ER)

Cardiology Clinical Academic Group, St. George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Molecular and Clinical Sciences, St. George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Andrew D Krahn (AD)

Division of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address: akrahn@mail.ubc.ca.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH