Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease (Jan 2022)

Ajmaline‐Induced Abnormalities in Brugada Syndrome: Evaluation With ECG Imaging

  • Luigi Pannone,
  • Cinzia Monaco,
  • Antonio Sorgente,
  • Pasquale Vergara,
  • Paul‐Adrian Calburean,
  • Anaïs Gauthey,
  • Antonio Bisignani,
  • Shuichiro Kazawa,
  • Antanas Strazdas,
  • Joerelle Mojica,
  • Felicia Lipartiti,
  • Maysam Al Housari,
  • Vincenzo Miraglia,
  • Sergio Rizzi,
  • Dimitrios Sofianos,
  • Federico Cecchini,
  • Thiago Guimarães Osório,
  • Gaetano Paparella,
  • Robbert Ramak,
  • Ingrid Overeinder,
  • Gezim Bala,
  • Alexandre Almorad,
  • Erwin Ströker,
  • Gudrun Pappaert,
  • Juan Sieira,
  • Pedro Brugada,
  • Mark La Meir,
  • Gian‐Battista Chierchia,
  • Carlo de Asmundis

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.024001
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 2

Abstract

Read online

Background The rate of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in Brugada syndrome (BrS) is ≈1%/y. Noninvasive electrocardiographic imaging is a noninvasive mapping system that has a role in assessing BrS depolarization and repolarization abnormalities. This study aimed to analyze electrocardiographic imaging parameters during ajmaline test (AJT). Methods and Results All consecutive epicardial maps of the right ventricle outflow tract (RVOT‐EPI) in BrS with CardioInsight were retrospectively analyzed. (1) RVOT‐EPI activation time (RVOT‐AT); (2) RVOT‐EPI recovery time, and (3) RVOT‐EPI activation‐recovery interval (RVOT‐ARI) were calculated. ∆RVOT‐AT, ∆RVOT‐EPI recovery time, and ∆RVOT‐ARI were defined as the difference in parameters before and after AJT. SCD‐BrS patients were defined as individuals presenting a history of aborted SCD. Thirty‐nine patients with BrS were retrospectively analyzed and 12 patients (30.8%) were SCD‐BrS. After AJT, an increase in both RVOT‐AT [105.9 milliseconds versus 65.8 milliseconds, P<0.001] and RVOT‐EPI recovery time [403.4 milliseconds versus 365.7 milliseconds, P<0.001] was observed. No changes occurred in RVOT‐ARI [297.5 milliseconds versus 299.9 milliseconds, P=0.7]. Before AJT no differences were observed between SCD‐BrS and non SCD‐BrS in RVOT‐AT, RVOT‐EPI recovery time, and RVOT‐ARI (P=0.9, P=0.91, P=0.86, respectively). Following AJT, SCD‐BrS patients showed higher RVOT‐AT, higher ∆RVOT‐AT, lower RVOT‐ARI, and lower ∆RVOT‐ARI (P<0.001, P<0.001, P=0.007, P=0.002, respectively). At the univariate logistic regression, predictors of SCD‐BrS were the following: RVOT‐AT after AJT (specificity: 0.74, sensitivity 1.00, area under the curve 0.92); ∆RVOT‐AT (specificity: 0.74, sensitivity 0.92, area under the curve 0.86); RVOT‐ARI after AJT (specificity 0.96, sensitivity 0.58, area under the curve 0.79), and ∆RVOT‐ARI (specificity 0.85, sensitivity 0.67, area under the curve 0.76). Conclusions Noninvasive electrocardiographic imaging can be useful in evaluating the results of AJT in BrS.

Keywords