Dataset Information

Higher Dispersion Measures of Conduction and Repolarization in Type 1 Compared to Non-type 1 Brugada Syndrome Patients: An Electrocardiographic Study From a Single Center.

ABSTRACT: Background: Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a cardiac ion channelopathy that predisposes affected individuals to sudden cardiac death (SCD). Type 1 BrS is thought to take a more malignant clinical course than non-type 1 BrS. We hypothesized that the degrees of abnormal repolarization and conduction are greater in type 1 subjects and these differences can be detected by electrocardiography (ECG). Methods: Electrocardiographic data from spontaneous type 1 and non-type 1 BrS patients were analyzed. ECG parameters were measured from leads V1 to V3. Values were expressed as median [lower quartile-upper quartile] and compared using Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA. Results: Compared to non-type 1 BrS patients (n = 29), patients with spontaneous type 1 patterns (n = 22) showed similar (P > 0.05) heart rate (73 [64-77] vs. 68 [62-80] bpm), QRS duration (136 [124-161] vs. 127 [117-144] ms), uncorrected QT (418 [393-443] vs. 402 [386-424] ms) and corrected QT intervals (457 [414-474] vs. 430 [417-457] ms), JT_peak intervals (174 [144-183] vs. 174 [150-188] ms), T_peak- T_end intervals (101 [93-120] vs. 99 [90-105] ms), T_peak- T_end/QT ratios (0.25 [0.23-0.27] vs. 0.24 [0.22-0.27]), T_peak- T_end/QRS (0.77 [0.62-0.87] vs. 0.77 [0.69-0.86]), T_peak- T_end/(QRS × QT) (0.00074 [0.00034-0.00096] vs. 0.00073 [0.00048-0.00012] ms^-1), index of Cardiac Electrophysiological Balance (iCEB, QT/QRS, marker of wavelength: 3.14 [2.56-3.35] vs. 3.21 [2.85-3.46]) and corrected iCEB (QTc/QRS: 3.25 [2.91-3.73] vs. 3.49 [2.99-3.78]). Higher QRS dispersion was seen in type 1 subjects (QRSd: 34 [24-66] vs. 24 [12-34] ms) but QT dispersion (QTd: 48 [39-71] vs. 43 [22-94] ms), QTc dispersion (QTcd: 52 [41-79] vs. 46 [23-104] ms), JT_peak dispersion (44 [23-62] vs. 45 [30-62] ms), T_peak- T_end dispersion (28 [15-34] vs. 29 [22-53] ms) or T_peak- T_end/QT dispersion (0.06 [0.03-0.08] vs. 0.08 [0.04-0.12]) did not differ between the two groups. Type 1 subjects showed higher (QRSd × T_peak- T_end)/QRS (25 [19-44] vs. 19 [9-30] ms) but similar iCEB dispersion (0.83 [0.49-1.14] vs. 0.61 [0.34-0.92]) and iCEBc dispersion (0.93 [0.51-1.15] vs. 0.65 [0.39-0.96]). Conclusion: Higher levels of dispersion in conduction and repolarization are found in type 1 than non-type 1 BrS patients, potentially explaining the higher incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in the former group.

SUBMITTER: Tse G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6180153 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Higher Dispersion Measures of Conduction and Repolarization in Type 1 Compared to Non-type 1 Brugada Syndrome Patients: An Electrocardiographic Study From a Single Center.

Tse Gary G Li Ka Hou Christien KHC Li Guangping G Liu Tong T Bazoukis George G Wong Wing Tak WT Chan Matthew T V MTV Wong Martin C S MCS Xia Yunlong Y Letsas Konstantinos P KP Chan Gary Chin Pang GCP Chan Yat Sun YS Wu William K K WKK

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 20181004

<b>Background:</b> Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a cardiac ion channelopathy that predisposes affected individuals to sudden cardiac death (SCD). Type 1 BrS is thought to take a more malignant clinical course than non-type 1 BrS. We hypothesized that the degrees of abnormal repolarization and conduction are greater in type 1 subjects and these differences can be detected by electrocardiography (ECG). <b>Methods:</b> Electrocardiographic data from spontaneous type 1 and non-type 1 BrS patients were a ...[more]

PMID: 30338262

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Dispersion and gradients in repolarization have been associated with life-threatening arrhythmias, but are difficult to quantify precisely from surface electrocardiography. The objective of this study was to evaluate electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) to noninvasively detect repolarization-based abnormalities. Methods and Results Ex vivo data were obtained from Langendorff-perfused pig hearts (n=8) and a human donor heart. Unipolar electrograms were recorded simultaneously during sinus rhythm from an epicardial sock and the torso-shaped tank within which the heart was suspended. Regional repolarization heterogeneities were introduced through perfusion of dofetilide and pinacidil into separate perfusion beds. In vivo data included torso and epicardial potentials recorded simultaneously in anesthetized, closed-chest pigs (n=5), during sinus rhythm, and ventricular pacing. For both data sets, ECGI accurately reconstructed T-wave electrogram morphologies when compared with those recorded by the sock (ex vivo: correlation coefficient, 0.85 [0.52-0.96], in vivo: correlation coefficient, 0.86 [0.52-0.96]) and repolarization time maps (ex-vivo: correlation coefficient, 0.73 [0.63-0.83], in vivo: correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.67-0.82]). ECGI-reconstructed repolarization time distributions were strongly correlated to those measured by the sock (both data sets, R2 ≥0.92). Although the position of the gradient was slightly shifted by 8.3 (0-13.9) mm, the mean, max, and SD between ECGI and recorded gradient values were highly correlated (R2=0.87, 0.75, and 0.86 respectively). There was no significant difference in ECGI accuracy between ex vivo and in vivo data. Conclusions ECGI reliably and accurately maps potentially critical repolarization abnormalities. This noninvasive approach allows imaging and quantifying individual parameters of abnormal repolarization-based substrates in patients with arrhythmogenesis, to improve diagnosis and risk stratification.

Dataset Information

Higher Dispersion Measures of Conduction and Repolarization in Type 1 Compared to Non-type 1 Brugada Syndrome Patients: An Electrocardiographic Study From a Single Center.

Publications

Higher Dispersion Measures of Conduction and Repolarization in Type 1 Compared to Non-type 1 Brugada Syndrome Patients: An Electrocardiographic Study From a Single Center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets