Proposed Diagnostic Criteria for the Brugada Syndrome

Abstract

Asyndrome characterized by ST-segment elevation in right precordial leads (V1 to V3) that is unrelated to ischemia, electrolyte disturbances, or obvious structural heart disease was reported as early as 1953,1 but was first described as a distinct clinical entity associated with a high risk of sudden cardiac death in 1992.2–4⇓⇓ The Brugada syndrome is a familial disease that displays an autosomal dominant mode of transmission, with incomplete penetrance and an incidence ranging between 5 and 66 per 10 000. In regions of Southeast Asia where it is endemic, the clinical presentation of Brugada syndrome is distinguished by a male predominance (8:1 ratio of male:female) and the appearance of arrhythmic events at an average age of 40 years (range: 1 to 77 years).2,5⇓ Although a number of candidate genes are considered plausible, thus far the syndrome has been linked only to mutations in SCN5A , the gene encoding for the α subunit of the sodium channel.6 A number of ambiguities exist concerning the diagnosis of Brugada syndrome. The electrocardiographic signature of the syndrome is dynamic and often concealed, but can be unmasked by potent sodium channel blockers such as flecainide, ajmaline, and procainamide,7 although the specificity of this effect for uncovering patients at risk for sudden death has been an issue of concern. A recent report by Remme et al8 has shown that the number of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation patients diagnosed as having Brugada syndrome is a sensitive function of the diagnostic criteria applied. What are the proper diagnostic criteria for identifying Brugada syndrome? A definitive answer to this question has been out of reach and is the reason for the establishment of a special Arrhythmia Working Group of the European Society of Cardiology that met from August 31 to …