Shanghai Score System for Diagnosis of Brugada Syndrome: Validation of the Score System and System and Reclassification of the Patients

Satoshi Kawada, Hiroshi Morita, Charles Antzelevitch, Yoshimasa Morimoto, Koji Nakagawa, Atsuyuki Watanabe, Nobuhiro Nishii, Kazufumi Nakamura, Hiroshi Itoh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The principal objective was to perform an initial test of the Shanghai Brugada Scoring System. Diagnosis of probable and/or definite Brugada syndrome (BrS), possible BrS, and nondiagnostic outcomes were assigned scores of ≥3.5, 2 to 3, and <2 points, respectively. The proposed score system was based on the available published reports and on weighted coefficients derived from limited datasets, with the understanding that these recommendations would need to undergo continuing validation. Background: The 2016 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE J-Wave Syndrome Consensus Report proposed a scoring system for diagnosis of BrS that takes into account electrocardiographic recordings, genetic results, clinical characteristics, and family history. Methods: The patient population consisted of 393 patients evaluated at our hospital for BrS (271 asymptomatic, 99 with syncope, and 23 with ventricular fibrillation [VF]) between 1996 and 2016. Subjects were classified into 4 groups: group A with a score of ≤3.0 points (n = 45); group B with a score of 3.5 points (n = 186); group C with a score of 4.0 to 5.0 points (n = 81); and group D with a score of ≥5.5 points (n = 81). Results: A total of 348 (88%) patients had probable and/or definite BrS, and 81 (20%) had a score ≥5.5. During a follow-up of 97.3 months (range: 39.7 to 142.1 months), 43 patients experienced VF. Significant differences were seen among the 4 groups (p = 0.01). A malignant arrhythmic event did not occur in any patient with possible or nondiagnostic BrS. Conclusions: This study provided validation for the use of the Shanghai Score System for the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with BrS.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)724-730
Number of pages7
JournalJACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
Volume4
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Brugada Syndrome
Ventricular Fibrillation
Validation Studies
Syncope
Consensus

Keywords

  • Brugada syndrome
  • J-wave syndrome
  • risk stratification
  • Shanghai Score System
  • ventricular fibrillation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

@article{bb2765d974404447b286a2502f94d206,
title = "Shanghai Score System for Diagnosis of Brugada Syndrome: Validation of the Score System and System and Reclassification of the Patients",
abstract = "Objectives: The principal objective was to perform an initial test of the Shanghai Brugada Scoring System. Diagnosis of probable and/or definite Brugada syndrome (BrS), possible BrS, and nondiagnostic outcomes were assigned scores of ≥3.5, 2 to 3, and <2 points, respectively. The proposed score system was based on the available published reports and on weighted coefficients derived from limited datasets, with the understanding that these recommendations would need to undergo continuing validation. Background: The 2016 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE J-Wave Syndrome Consensus Report proposed a scoring system for diagnosis of BrS that takes into account electrocardiographic recordings, genetic results, clinical characteristics, and family history. Methods: The patient population consisted of 393 patients evaluated at our hospital for BrS (271 asymptomatic, 99 with syncope, and 23 with ventricular fibrillation [VF]) between 1996 and 2016. Subjects were classified into 4 groups: group A with a score of ≤3.0 points (n = 45); group B with a score of 3.5 points (n = 186); group C with a score of 4.0 to 5.0 points (n = 81); and group D with a score of ≥5.5 points (n = 81). Results: A total of 348 (88{\%}) patients had probable and/or definite BrS, and 81 (20{\%}) had a score ≥5.5. During a follow-up of 97.3 months (range: 39.7 to 142.1 months), 43 patients experienced VF. Significant differences were seen among the 4 groups (p = 0.01). A malignant arrhythmic event did not occur in any patient with possible or nondiagnostic BrS. Conclusions: This study provided validation for the use of the Shanghai Score System for the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with BrS.",
keywords = "Brugada syndrome, J-wave syndrome, risk stratification, Shanghai Score System, ventricular fibrillation",
author = "Satoshi Kawada and Hiroshi Morita and Charles Antzelevitch and Yoshimasa Morimoto and Koji Nakagawa and Atsuyuki Watanabe and Nobuhiro Nishii and Kazufumi Nakamura and Hiroshi Itoh",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacep.2018.02.009",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "724--730",
journal = "JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology",
issn = "2405-5018",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shanghai Score System for Diagnosis of Brugada Syndrome

T2 - Validation of the Score System and System and Reclassification of the Patients

AU - Kawada, Satoshi

AU - Morita, Hiroshi

AU - Antzelevitch, Charles

AU - Morimoto, Yoshimasa

AU - Nakagawa, Koji

AU - Watanabe, Atsuyuki

AU - Nishii, Nobuhiro

AU - Nakamura, Kazufumi

AU - Itoh, Hiroshi

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Objectives: The principal objective was to perform an initial test of the Shanghai Brugada Scoring System. Diagnosis of probable and/or definite Brugada syndrome (BrS), possible BrS, and nondiagnostic outcomes were assigned scores of ≥3.5, 2 to 3, and <2 points, respectively. The proposed score system was based on the available published reports and on weighted coefficients derived from limited datasets, with the understanding that these recommendations would need to undergo continuing validation. Background: The 2016 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE J-Wave Syndrome Consensus Report proposed a scoring system for diagnosis of BrS that takes into account electrocardiographic recordings, genetic results, clinical characteristics, and family history. Methods: The patient population consisted of 393 patients evaluated at our hospital for BrS (271 asymptomatic, 99 with syncope, and 23 with ventricular fibrillation [VF]) between 1996 and 2016. Subjects were classified into 4 groups: group A with a score of ≤3.0 points (n = 45); group B with a score of 3.5 points (n = 186); group C with a score of 4.0 to 5.0 points (n = 81); and group D with a score of ≥5.5 points (n = 81). Results: A total of 348 (88%) patients had probable and/or definite BrS, and 81 (20%) had a score ≥5.5. During a follow-up of 97.3 months (range: 39.7 to 142.1 months), 43 patients experienced VF. Significant differences were seen among the 4 groups (p = 0.01). A malignant arrhythmic event did not occur in any patient with possible or nondiagnostic BrS. Conclusions: This study provided validation for the use of the Shanghai Score System for the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with BrS.

AB - Objectives: The principal objective was to perform an initial test of the Shanghai Brugada Scoring System. Diagnosis of probable and/or definite Brugada syndrome (BrS), possible BrS, and nondiagnostic outcomes were assigned scores of ≥3.5, 2 to 3, and <2 points, respectively. The proposed score system was based on the available published reports and on weighted coefficients derived from limited datasets, with the understanding that these recommendations would need to undergo continuing validation. Background: The 2016 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE J-Wave Syndrome Consensus Report proposed a scoring system for diagnosis of BrS that takes into account electrocardiographic recordings, genetic results, clinical characteristics, and family history. Methods: The patient population consisted of 393 patients evaluated at our hospital for BrS (271 asymptomatic, 99 with syncope, and 23 with ventricular fibrillation [VF]) between 1996 and 2016. Subjects were classified into 4 groups: group A with a score of ≤3.0 points (n = 45); group B with a score of 3.5 points (n = 186); group C with a score of 4.0 to 5.0 points (n = 81); and group D with a score of ≥5.5 points (n = 81). Results: A total of 348 (88%) patients had probable and/or definite BrS, and 81 (20%) had a score ≥5.5. During a follow-up of 97.3 months (range: 39.7 to 142.1 months), 43 patients experienced VF. Significant differences were seen among the 4 groups (p = 0.01). A malignant arrhythmic event did not occur in any patient with possible or nondiagnostic BrS. Conclusions: This study provided validation for the use of the Shanghai Score System for the diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with BrS.

KW - Brugada syndrome

KW - J-wave syndrome

KW - risk stratification

KW - Shanghai Score System

KW - ventricular fibrillation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044544724&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044544724&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.02.009

DO - 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.02.009

M3 - Article

C2 - 29929664

AN - SCOPUS:85044544724

VL - 4

SP - 724

EP - 730

JO - JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology

JF - JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology

SN - 2405-5018

IS - 6

ER -