Value of programmed electrical stimulation in Brugada Syndrome: a cohort study

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Prognostic value programmed electrical stimulation (PES) in Brugada Syndrome (BrS) remains controversial. Substantial controversy exists regarding usefulness PES identifying BrS patients at risk sudden cardiac death (SCD). Implantation an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is the only reliable form SCD prevention this specific population Purpose To determine if induction sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VA) a predictor events (CE), defined as composite SCD, appropriate ICD therapy for VA or unexplained syncope. Methods A retrospective analysis 34 with spontaneous pharmacologically induced type 1 pattern, submitted to electrophysiology study between 2015 and 2019 Portuguese Center, was performed. Patients were followed 24 months. Hospital records monitoring data from devices consulted. The Mann-Whitney U test used median comparison groups. Binary logistic regression through stepwise method performed evaluate categorical features. Results 35% (n=12) 27% (n=9) had 2 pattern basal electrocardiography, respectively. 23% (n=8) by PES. mean age 51,2±12,3 years. 71% (n=24) male. 15% (n=5) history syncope, family SCD. 9% (n=3) carriers SNC5A mutation. Mean AH time HV were, respectively, 105±31,9, 49±8,5ms. During months follow-up, suffered CE (2 syncope SCD). None who inducible study. There no statistical significance occurrence when comparing both groups (VA vs. arrhythmia) (p=0,49, OR 0,89, IC 95% 0,70;1,02). Through binary logistics, adjusted potential confounders (gender, identification genetic variant), electrocardiography 2,2 times more likely have (IC 0,12;40,2). Conclusion In population, not during follow-up period, which highlights difficulty stratification BrS. New risk-stratification tools are urgently needed select those higher-risk candidates prophylactic implantation.