Aims Sodium-channel blockers (SCBs) are associated with arrhythmia, but variability of cardiac electrical response remains unexplained. We sought to identify predictors of ajmaline-induced PR and QRS changes and Type I Brugada syndrome (BrS) electrocardiogram (ECG). Methods and results In 1368 patients that underwent ajmaline infusion for suspected BrS, we performed measurements of 26 721 ECGs, dose–response mixed modelling and genotyping. We calculated polygenic risk scores (PRS) for PR interval (PRSPR), QRS duration (PRSQRS), and Brugada syndrome (PRSBrS) derived from published genome-wide association studies and used regression analysis to identify predictors of ajmaline dose related PR change (slope) and QRS slope. We derived and validated using bootstrapping a predictive model for ajmaline-induced Type I BrS ECG. Higher PRSPR, baseline PR, and female sex are associated with more pronounced PR slope, while PRSQRS and age are positively associated with QRS slope (P < 0.01 for all). PRSBrS, baseline QRS duration, presence of Type II or III BrS ECG at baseline, and family history of BrS are independently associated with the occurrence of a Type I BrS ECG, with good predictive accuracy (optimism-corrected C-statistic 0.74). Conclusion We show for the first time that genetic factors underlie the variability of cardiac electrical response to SCB. PRSBrS, family history, and a baseline ECG can predict the development of a diagnostic drug-induced Type I BrS ECG with clinically relevant accuracy. These findings could lead to the use of PRS in the diagnosis of BrS and, if confirmed in population studies, to identify patients at risk for toxicity when given SCB.

No abstract

Objectives: Abdominal aortic aneurysms are associated with a sharply increased cardiovascular risk. Cardiovascular risk management is therefore recommended in prevailing guidelines for abdominal aneurysm patients. It has been hypothesized that associated risk relates to loss of aortic compliance. If this hypothesis is correct, observations for abdominal aneurysms would also apply to thoracic aortic aneurysms. The objective of this study is to test whether thoracic aneurysms are also associated with an increased cardiovascular risk burden. Methods: Patients who underwent aortic valve or root surgery were included in the study (n = 239). Cardiovascular risk factors were studied and atherosclerosis was scored based on the preoperative coronary angiographies. Multivariate analyses were performed, controlling for cardiovascular risk factors and aortic valve morphology. Comparisons were made with the age- and gender-matched general population and non-aneurysm patients as control groups. A thoracic aortic aneurysm was defined as an aortic aneurysm of ≥45 mm. Results: Thoracic aortic aneurysm was not associated with an increased coronary atherosclerotic burden (p = 0.548). Comparison with the general population revealed a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension (61.4% vs. 32.2%, p < 0.001) and a lower prevalence of diabetes (1.4% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.001) in the thoracic aneurysm group. Conclusions: The extreme cardiovascular risk associated with abdominal aortic aneurysms is location-specific and not explained by loss of aortic compliance. Thoracic aortic aneurysm, in contrast to abdominal, is not part of the atherosclerotic disease spectrum and, therefore, cardiovascular risk management does not need to be implemented in treatment guidelines of isolated thoracic aneurysms. Hypertension should be treated.