BACKGROUNDThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to avoid complications related to the transvenous ICD lead by using an entirely extrathoracic placement. Evidence comparing these systems has been based primarily on observational studies. METHODSWe conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing were assigned to receive a subcutaneous ICD or transvenous ICD. The primary end point was the composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks; the noninferiority margin for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (subcutaneous ICD vs. transvenous ICD) was 1.45. A superiority analysis was prespecified if noninferiority was established. Secondary end points included death and appropriate shocks. RESULTSA total of 849 patients (426 in the subcutaneous ICD group and 423 in the transvenous ICD group) were included in the analyses. At a median follow-up of 49.1 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 68 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 patients in the transvenous ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 15.1% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.39; P = 0.01 for noninferiority; P = 0.95 for superiority). Device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 44 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.09); inappropriate shocks occurred in 41 and 29 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.30). Death occurred in 83 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.70); appropriate shocks occurred in 83 and 57 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONSIn patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to devicerelated complications and inappropriate shocks. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PRAETORIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01296022.

To identify genetic factors influencing cardiac conduction, we carried out a genome-wide association study of electrocardiographic time intervals in 6,543 Indian Asians. We identified association of a nonsynonymous SNP, rs6795970, in SCN10A (P = 2.8 x 10(-15)) with PR interval, a marker of cardiac atrioventricular conduction. Replication testing among 6,243 Indian Asians and 5,370 Europeans confirmed that rs6795970 (G>A) is associated with prolonged cardiac conduction (longer P-wave duration, PR interval and QRS duration, P = 10(-5) to 10(-20)). SCN10A encodes Na(V)1.8, a sodium channel. We show that SCN10A is expressed in mouse and human heart tissue and that PR interval is shorter in Scn10a(-/-) mice than in wild-type mice. We also find that rs6795970 is associated with a higher risk of heart block (P < 0.05) and a lower risk of ventricular fibrillation (P = 0.01). Our findings provide new insight into the pathogenesis of cardiac conduction, heart block and ventricular fibrillation.

No abstract

GP ablation during thoracoscopic surgery for advanced AF has no detectable effect on AF recurrence but causes more major adverse events, major bleeding, sinus node dysfunction, and pacemaker implantation. (Atrial Fibrillation Ablation and Autonomic Modulation via Thoracoscopic Surgery [AFACT]; NCT01091389).

Sudden cardiac death from ventricular fibrillation during acute myocardial infarction is a leading cause of total and cardiovascular mortality. To our knowledge, we here report the first genome-wide association study for this trait, conducted in a set of 972 individuals with a first acute myocardial infarction, 515 of whom had ventricular fibrillation and 457 of whom did not, from the Arrhythmia Genetics in The Netherlands (AGNES) study. The most significant association to ventricular fibrillation was found at 21q21 (rs2824292, odds ratio = 1.78, 95% CI 1.47–2.13, P = 3.3 × 10−10). The association of rs2824292 with ventricular fibrillation was replicated in an independent case-control set consisting of 146 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest individuals with myocardial infarction complicated by ventricular fibrillation and 391 individuals who survived a myocardial infarction (controls) (odds ratio = 1.49, 95% CI 1.14–1.95, P = 0.004). The closest gene to this SNP is CXADR, which encodes a viral receptor previously implicated in myocarditis and dilated cardiomyopathy and which has recently been identified as a modulator of cardiac conduction. This locus has not previously been implicated in arrhythmia susceptibility.

BACKGROUND: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is associated with potentially fatal arrhythmias. Treatment is very effective, but its diagnosis may be challenging. Importantly, different methods are used to assess the QT interval, which makes its recognition difficult. QT experts advocate manual measurements with the tangent or threshold method. However, differences between these methods and their performance in LQTS diagnosis have not been established. We aimed to assess similarities and differences between these 2 methods for QT interval analysis to aid in accurate QT assessment for LQTS. METHODS: Patients with a confirmed pathogenic variant in KCNQ1(LQT1), KCNH2(LQT2), or SCN5A(LQT3) genes and their family members were included. Genotype-positive patients were identified as LQTS cases and genotype-negative family members as controls. ECGs were analyzed with both methods, providing inter-and intrareader validity and diagnostic accuracy. Cutoff values based on control population's 95th and 99th percentiles, and LQTS-patients' 1st and 5th percentiles were established based on the method to correct for heart rate, age, and sex. RESULTS: We included 1484 individuals from 265 families, aged 33±21 years and 55% females. In the total cohort, QT Tangent was 10.4 ms shorter compared with QT Threshold (95% limits of agreement±20.5 ms, P<0.0001). For all genotypes, QT Tangent was shorter than QT Threshold (P<0.0001), but this was less pronounced in LQT2. Both methods yielded a high interand intrareader validity (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.96), and a high diagnostic accuracy (area under the curve >0.84). Using the current guideline cutoff (QTc interval 480 ms), both methods had similar specificity but yielded a different sensitivity. QTc interval cutoff values of QT Tangent were lower compared with QT Threshold and different depending on the correction for heart rate, age, and sex. CONCLUSION: The QT interval varies depending on the method used for its assessment, yet both methods have a high validity and can both be used in diagnosing LQTS. However, for diagnostic purposes current guideline cutoff values yield different results for these 2 methods and could result in inappropriate reassurance or treatment. Adjusted cutoff values are therefore specified for method, correction formula, age, and sex. In addition, a freely accessible online probability calculator for LQTS (www.QTcalculator.org) has been made available as an aid in the interpretation of the QT interval.

No abstract

These websites are extensively used, they promote drug awareness, and they help patients to avoid possible pro-arrhythmic drugs. Visitors find the websites valuable but should note their limitations.