Alessandro Vicentini

Risk Stratification in the Long-QT Syndrome

BACKGROUND Mutations in potassium-channel genes KCNQ1 (LQT1 locus) and KCNH2 (LQT2 locus) and the sodium-channel gene SCN5A (LQT3 locus) are the most common causes of the long-QT syndrome. We stratified risk according to the genotype, in conjunction with other clinical variables such as sex and the length of the QT interval. METHODS We evaluated 647 patients (386 with a mutation at the LQT1 locus, 206 with a mutation at the LQT2 locus, and 55 with a mutation at the LQT3 locus) from 193 consecutively genotyped families with the long-QT syndrome. The cumulative probability of a first cardiac event, defined as the occurrence of syncope, cardiac arrest, or sudden death before the age of 40 years and before the initiation of therapy, was determined according to genotype, sex, and the QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc). Within each genotype we also assessed risk in the four categories derived from the combination of sex and QTc (<500 msec or > or =500 msec). RESULTS The incidence of a first cardiac event before the age of 40 years and before the initiation of therapy was lower among patients with a mutation at the LQT1 locus (30 percent) than among those with a mutation at the LQT2 locus (46 percent) or those with a mutation at the LQT3 locus (42 percent) (P<0.001 by Fishers exact test). Multivariate analysis showed that the genetic locus and the QTc, but not sex, were independent predictors of risk. The QTc was an independent predictor of risk among patients with a mutation at the LQT1 locus and those with a mutation at the LQT2 locus but not among those with a mutation at the LQT3 locus, whereas sex was an independent predictor of events only among those with a mutation at the LQT3 locus. CONCLUSIONS The locus of the causative mutation affects the clinical course of the long-QT syndrome and modulates the effects of the QTc and sex on clinical manifestations. We propose an approach to risk stratification based on these variables.

KCNH2-K897T Is a Genetic Modifier of Latent Congenital Long-QT Syndrome

Background—Clinical heterogeneity among patients with long-QT syndrome (LQTS) sharing the same disease-causing mutation is usually attributed to variable penetrance. One potential explanation for this phenomenon is the coexistence of modifier gene alleles, possibly common single nucleotide polymorphisms, altering arrhythmia susceptibility. We demonstrate this concept in a family segregating a novel, low-penetrant KCNH2 mutation along with a common single nucleotide polymorphism in the same gene. Methods and Results—The proband is a 44-year-old white woman with palpitations associated with presyncope since age 20, who presented with ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest. Intermittent QT prolongation was subsequently observed (max QTc, 530 ms), and LQT2 was diagnosed after the identification of a missense KCNH2 mutation (A1116V) altering a conserved residue in the distal carboxyl-terminus of the encoded HERG protein. The proband also carried the common KCNH2 polymorphism K897T on the nonmutant allele. Relatives who carried A1116V without K897T were asymptomatic, but some exhibited transient mild QTc prolongation, suggesting latent disease. Heterologous expression studies performed in cultured mammalian cells and using bicistronic vectors linked to different fluorescent proteins demonstrated that coexpression of A1116V with K897T together resulted in significantly reduced current amplitude as compared with coexpression of either allele with WT-HERG. Thus, the presence of KCNH2-K897T is predicted to exaggerate the IKr reduction caused by the A1116V mutation. These data explain why symptomatic LQTS occurred only in the proband carrying both alleles. Conclusions—We have provided evidence that a common KCNH2 polymorphism may modify the clinical expression of a latent LQT2 mutation. A similar mechanism may contribute to the risk for sudden death in more prevalent cardiac diseases.

Who are the long-QT syndrome patients who receive an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and what happens to them?: Data from the European Long-QT syndrome implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (LQTS ICD) registry

Background— A rapidly growing number of long-QT syndrome (LQTS) patients are being treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). ICDs may pose problems, especially in the young. We sought to determine the characteristics of the LQTS patients receiving an ICD, the indications, and the aftermath. Methods and Results— The study population included 233 patients. Beginning in 2002, data were collected prospectively. Female patients (77%) and LQT3 patients (22% of genotype positive) were overrepresented; mean QTc was 516±65 milliseconds; mean age at implantation was 30±17 years; and genotype was known in 59% of patients. Unexpectedly, 9% of patients were asymptomatic before implantation. Asymptomatic patients, almost absent among LQT1 and LQT2 patients, represented 45% of LQT3 patients. Patients with cardiac symptoms made up 91% of all study participants, but only 44% had cardiac arrest before ICD implantation. In addition, 41% of patients received an ICD without having first been on LQTS therapy. During follow-up, 4.6±3.2 years, at least 1 appropriate shock was received by 28% of patients, and adverse events occurred in 25%. Appropriate ICD therapies were predicted by age 500 milliseconds, prior cardiac arrest, and cardiac events despite therapy; within 7 years, appropriate shocks occurred in no patients with none of these factors and in 70% of those with all factors. Conclusions— Reflecting previous concepts, ICDs were implanted in some LQTS patients whose high risk now appears questionable. Refined criteria for implantation, reassessment of pros and cons, ICD reprogramming, and consideration for other existing therapeutic options are necessary. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-18}Background— A rapidly growing number of long-QT syndrome (LQTS) patients are being treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). ICDs may pose problems, especially in the young. We sought to determine the characteristics of the LQTS patients receiving an ICD, the indications, and the aftermath. Methods and Results— The study population included 233 patients. Beginning in 2002, data were collected prospectively. Female patients (77%) and LQT3 patients (22% of genotype positive) were overrepresented; mean QTc was 516±65 milliseconds; mean age at implantation was 30±17 years; and genotype was known in 59% of patients. Unexpectedly, 9% of patients were asymptomatic before implantation. Asymptomatic patients, almost absent among LQT1 and LQT2 patients, represented 45% of LQT3 patients. Patients with cardiac symptoms made up 91% of all study participants, but only 44% had cardiac arrest before ICD implantation. In addition, 41% of patients received an ICD without having first been on LQTS therapy. During follow-up, 4.6±3.2 years, at least 1 appropriate shock was received by 28% of patients, and adverse events occurred in 25%. Appropriate ICD therapies were predicted by age <20 years at implantation, a QTc >500 milliseconds, prior cardiac arrest, and cardiac events despite therapy; within 7 years, appropriate shocks occurred in no patients with none of these factors and in 70% of those with all factors. Conclusions— Reflecting previous concepts, ICDs were implanted in some LQTS patients whose high risk now appears questionable. Refined criteria for implantation, reassessment of pros and cons, ICD reprogramming, and consideration for other existing therapeutic options are necessary.

QT interval prolongation related to psychoactive drug treatment: a comparison of monotherapy versus polytherapy

BackgroundSeveral antipsychotic agents are known to prolong the QT interval in a dose dependent manner. Corrected QT interval (QTc) exceeding a threshold value of 450 ms may be associated with an increased risk of life threatening arrhythmias. Antipsychotic agents are often given in combination with other psychotropic drugs, such as antidepressants, that may also contribute to QT prolongation. This observational study compares the effects observed on QT interval between antipsychotic monotherapy and psychoactive polytherapy, which included an additional antidepressant or lithium treatment.MethodWe examined two groups of hospitalized women with Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder in a naturalistic setting. Group 1 was composed of nineteen hospitalized women treated with antipsychotic monotherapy (either haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone or clozapine) and Group 2 was composed of nineteen hospitalized women treated with an antipsychotic (either haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone or quetiapine) with an additional antidepressant (citalopram, escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, fluvoxamine, mirtazapine, venlafaxine or clomipramine) or lithium. An Electrocardiogram (ECG) was carried out before the beginning of the treatment for both groups and at a second time after four days of therapy at full dosage, when blood was also drawn for determination of serum levels of the antipsychotic.Statistical analysis included repeated measures ANOVA, Fisher Exact Test and Indipendent T Test.ResultsMean QTc intervals significantly increased in Group 2 (24 ± 21 ms) however this was not the case in Group 1 (-1 ± 30 ms) (Repeated measures ANOVA p < 0,01). Furthermore we found a significant difference in the number of patients who exceeded the threshold of borderline QTc interval value (450 ms) between the two groups, with seven patients in Group 2 (38%) compared to one patient in Group 1 (7%) (Fisher Exact Text, p < 0,05).ConclusionsNo significant prolongation of the QT interval was found following monotherapy with an antipsychotic agent, while combination of these drugs with antidepressants caused a significant QT prolongation. Careful monitoring of the QT interval is suggested in patients taking a combined treatment of antipsychotic and antidepressant agents.

Identification of a KCNQ1 Polymorphism Acting as a Protective Modifier against Arrhythmic Risk in Long QT Syndrome

Background—Long-QT syndrome (LQTS) is characterized by such striking clinical heterogeneity that, even among family members carrying the same mutation, clinical outcome can range between sudden death and no symptoms. We investigated the role of genetic variants as modifiers of risk for cardiac events in patients with LQTS. Methods and Results—In a matched case–control study including 112 patient duos with LQTS from France, Italy, and Japan, 25 polymorphisms were genotyped based on either their association with QTc duration in healthy populations or on their role in adrenergic responses. The duos were composed of 2 relatives harboring the same heterozygous KCNQ1 or KCNH2 mutation: 1 with cardiac events and 1 asymptomatic and untreated. The findings were then validated in 2 independent founder populations totaling 174 symptomatic and 162 asymptomatic patients with LQTS, and a meta-analysis was performed. The KCNQ1 rs2074238 T-allele was significantly associated with a decreased risk of symptoms 0.34 (0.19–0.61; P<0.0002) and with shorter QTc (P<0.0001) in the combined discovery and replication cohorts. Conclusions—We provide evidence that the KCNQ1 rs2074238 polymorphism is an independent risk modifier with the minor T-allele conferring protection against cardiac events in patients with LQTS. This finding is a step toward a novel approach for risk stratification in patients with LQTS.

Failure of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: A matter of lead size?

BACKGROUND Small-diameter implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) Sprint Fidelis and Riata leads have been recalled owing to an increased risk of lead failure, thus arousing the suspicion that lead size might be a critical issue. OBJECTIVE To compare the incidence of failure of small-diameter (≤8 F) and standard-diameter (>8 F) ICD leads implanted in a single center. METHODS From January 2003 to December 2010, 190 Sprint Fidelis, 182 Riata/Riata ST, 99 Optim (Riata Optim/Durata), and 419 standard-diameter leads were implanted in our center. RESULTS During a median follow-up of 33 months, the overall failure rate was 6.3%. Follow-up duration was similar for Sprint Fidelis, Riata, and standard-diameter leads but shorter for the Optim group. The failure rate was significantly higher in Sprint Fidelis leads than in both standard-diameter (4.8%/year vs 0.8%/year; P<.001) and Riata/Riata ST (4.8%/year vs 2.6%/year; P = .03) leads. The incidence of lead failure in Riata/Riata ST leads proved significantly higher than in standard-diameter leads (2.6%/year vs 0.8%/year; P = .001). No cases of lead failure were recorded in the Optim group. On multivariable analyses, small-diameter (hazard ratio [HR] 5.03, 2.53-10.01, P<.001), Sprint Fidelis (HR 6.3, 3.1-13.3, P<.001), or Riata/Riata ST (HR 4.5, 1.9-10.5, P = .001) leads and age<60 years (HR 2.3, 1.3-4.3, P = .005) were found to independently increase the risk of lead failure. CONCLUSIONS Compared with standard-diameter leads, both Sprint Fidelis and Riata/Riata ST small-diameter ICD leads are at an increased risk of failure, although the incidence of events is significantly lower in the Riata than in the Sprint Fidelis group.

Inherited arrhythmia syndromes: Applying the molecular biology and genetic to the clinical management

Thanks to the contribution of molecular genetics, the genetic bases, the pathogenesis and genotype–phenotype correlation of diseases such as the Long QT syndrome, the Brugada Syndrome, the Progessive cardiac conduction defect (Lenegre disease), the Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia and Andersen Syndrome have been progressively unveiled and show an extremely high degree of genetic heterogeneity. The evidences supporting this concept are outlined with a particular emphasis on the growing complexity of the molecular pathways that may lead to arrhythmias and sudden death, in term of the relationships between genetic defect(s) and genotype(s) as well as gene-to gene interactions. The current knowledge is reviewed, focusing on the evidence that a single clinical phenotype may be caused by different genetic substrates and, conversely, a single gene may cause very different phenotypes acting through different pathways.

Vagal reflexes following an exercise stress test: A simple clinical tool for gene-specific risk stratification in the long QT syndrome

OBJECTIVES The study assessed whether heart rate (HR) reduction following an exercise stress test (ExStrT), an easily quantifiable marker of vagal reflexes, might identify high- and low-risk long QT syndrome (LQTS) type 1 (LQT1) patients. BACKGROUND Identification of LQTS patients more likely to be symptomatic remains elusive. We have previously shown that depressed baroreflex sensitivity, an established marker of reduced vagal reflexes, predicts low probability of symptoms among LQT1. METHODS We studied 169 LQTS genotype-positive patients < 50 years of age who performed an ExStrT with the same protocol, on and off β-blockers including 47 South African LQT1 patients all harboring the KCNQ1-A341V mutation and 122 Italian LQTS patients with impaired (I(Ks)-, 66 LQT1) or normal (I(Ks)+, 50 LQT2 and 6 LQT3) I(Ks) current. RESULTS Despite similar maximal HR and workload, by the first minute after cessation of exercise the symptomatic patients in both I(Ks)- groups had a greater HR reduction compared with the asymptomatic (19 ± 7 beats/min vs. 13 ± 5 beats/min and 27 ± 10 beats/min vs. 20 ± 8 beats/min, both p = 0.009). By contrast, there was no difference between the I(Ks)+ symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (23 ± 9 beats/min vs. 26 ± 9 beats/min, p = 0.47). LQT1 patients in the upper tertile for HR reduction had a higher risk of being symptomatic (odds ratio: 3.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.3 to 8.3, p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS HR reduction following exercise identifies LQT1 patients at high or low arrhythmic risk, independently of β-blocker therapy, and contributes to risk stratification. Intense exercise training, which potentiates vagal reflexes, should probably be avoided by LQT1 patients.

Who Are the Long-QT Syndrome Patients Who Receive an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and What Happens to Them?

Background— A rapidly growing number of long-QT syndrome (LQTS) patients are being treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). ICDs may pose problems, especially in the young. We sought to determine the characteristics of the LQTS patients receiving an ICD, the indications, and the aftermath. Methods and Results— The study population included 233 patients. Beginning in 2002, data were collected prospectively. Female patients (77%) and LQT3 patients (22% of genotype positive) were overrepresented; mean QTc was 516±65 milliseconds; mean age at implantation was 30±17 years; and genotype was known in 59% of patients. Unexpectedly, 9% of patients were asymptomatic before implantation. Asymptomatic patients, almost absent among LQT1 and LQT2 patients, represented 45% of LQT3 patients. Patients with cardiac symptoms made up 91% of all study participants, but only 44% had cardiac arrest before ICD implantation. In addition, 41% of patients received an ICD without having first been on LQTS therapy. During follow-up, 4.6±3.2 years, at least 1 appropriate shock was received by 28% of patients, and adverse events occurred in 25%. Appropriate ICD therapies were predicted by age 500 milliseconds, prior cardiac arrest, and cardiac events despite therapy; within 7 years, appropriate shocks occurred in no patients with none of these factors and in 70% of those with all factors. Conclusions— Reflecting previous concepts, ICDs were implanted in some LQTS patients whose high risk now appears questionable. Refined criteria for implantation, reassessment of pros and cons, ICD reprogramming, and consideration for other existing therapeutic options are necessary. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-18}Background— A rapidly growing number of long-QT syndrome (LQTS) patients are being treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). ICDs may pose problems, especially in the young. We sought to determine the characteristics of the LQTS patients receiving an ICD, the indications, and the aftermath. Methods and Results— The study population included 233 patients. Beginning in 2002, data were collected prospectively. Female patients (77%) and LQT3 patients (22% of genotype positive) were overrepresented; mean QTc was 516±65 milliseconds; mean age at implantation was 30±17 years; and genotype was known in 59% of patients. Unexpectedly, 9% of patients were asymptomatic before implantation. Asymptomatic patients, almost absent among LQT1 and LQT2 patients, represented 45% of LQT3 patients. Patients with cardiac symptoms made up 91% of all study participants, but only 44% had cardiac arrest before ICD implantation. In addition, 41% of patients received an ICD without having first been on LQTS therapy. During follow-up, 4.6±3.2 years, at least 1 appropriate shock was received by 28% of patients, and adverse events occurred in 25%. Appropriate ICD therapies were predicted by age <20 years at implantation, a QTc >500 milliseconds, prior cardiac arrest, and cardiac events despite therapy; within 7 years, appropriate shocks occurred in no patients with none of these factors and in 70% of those with all factors. Conclusions— Reflecting previous concepts, ICDs were implanted in some LQTS patients whose high risk now appears questionable. Refined criteria for implantation, reassessment of pros and cons, ICD reprogramming, and consideration for other existing therapeutic options are necessary.

Positive trend in survival to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a quantitative review of the literature

Background Seven editions of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiovascular care guidelines have been published with many changes, in particular, about CPR. Objectives The aim of our study was to evaluate the temporal trend of survival to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) as a possible effect of guidelines changes. Methods We searched PubMed for observational studies on ‘survival to hospital discharge after OHCA’. Survival to discharge was the primary outcome; prehospital return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital admission were our secondary endpoints. All data were analyzed according to the year of inclusion: group 1 before 2000; group 2 between 2000 and 2005; and group 3 after 2005. Mortality rates were compared between groups by means of a group frequency-weighted log-linear model. Results We considered 38 of 201 studies for a total of 156 301 patients. Survival to hospital discharge rate was 5.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.9–5.2) in group 1; 6.1% (95% CI 5.9–6.4) in group 2; and 9.1% (95% CI 8.9–9.4) in group 3 (P < 0.001). A statistically significant decrease in risk of mortality in group 2 vs. group 1 (risk ratio 0.988, 95% CI 0. 985–0.0.992, P < 0.001) and in group 3 vs. group 2 (risk ratio 0.967, 95% CI 0.964–0.971, P < 0.001) was observed. Similar trends were observed for return of spontaneous circulation and survival to hospital admission. Conclusion Survival to hospital discharge after OHCA has significantly improved. Many aspects may influence survival, but surely, the reduction of time and an early and good quality CPR have positively influenced the outcome.