Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Long-term predictors of outcome in Brugada syndrome patients after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant
Authors' conclusion
CPG class IIa and I had a similar rate of ICD shock at follow-up. We also provide robust evidence indicating that the quantification of the BrS arrhythmic risk score at the moment of ICD implant may improve the identification of patients who will benefit from ICD at follow-up.
Study context
- Population
- Brugada syndrome patients who underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant either for primary or secondary preventionpatients with ICD implant
- Participants
- 551 patients
- Exposure
- Occurrence of arrhythmic events by clinical practice guidelines (CPG) indications and Brugada syndrome (BrS) 5-year risk score in patients with LAEs compared with those without events
- Outcome
- Life-threatening arrhythmic events (LAE)
- Follow-up
- Median 8.1 years
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Patients experiencing LAE
Eleven per cent
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Risk profile by ESC indication
- Patients with ESC class IIA indication had a similar risk profile as those implanted for secondary prevention
BrS 5-year risk score, patients with LAEs vs without events
- Whole cohort: with LAEs vs without
- 26.93 ± 3.33 vs. 4.41 ± 0.61
- Primary prevention: with LAEs vs without
- 11.67 ± 1.52 vs. 5.36 ± 0.99
- P < 0.0001
Original publication
Long-term predictors of outcome in Brugada syndrome patients after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant. Europace. Published 21 October 2026. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it