The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Genotype-phenotype relationship in Brugada syndrome: electrocardiographic features differentiate SCN5A-related patients from non–SCN5A-related patients
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES We have tested whether a genotype-phenotype relationship exists in Brugada syndrome (BS) by trying to distinguish BS patients with (carriers) and those without (non-carriers) a mutation in the gene encoding the cardiac sodium channel (SCN5A) using clinical parameters. BACKGROUND Brugada syndrome is an inherited cardiac disease characterized by a varying degree of ST-segment elevation in the right precordial leads and (non)specific conduction disorders. In a minority of patients, SCN5A mutations can be found. Genetic heterogeneity has been demonstrated, but other causally related genes await identification. If a genotype-phenotype relationship exists, this might facilitate screening. METHODS In a multi-center study, we have collected data on demographics, clinical history, family history, electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters, His to ventricle interval (HV), and ECG parameters after pharmacologic challenge with I(Na) blocking drugs for BS patients with (n = 23), or those without (n = 54), an identified SCN5A mutation. RESULTS No differences were found in demographics, clinical history, or family history. Carriers had a significantly longer PQ interval on the baseline ECG and a significantly longer HV time. A PQ interval of > or =210 ms and an HV interval > or =60 ms seem to be predictive for the presence of an SCN5A mutation. After I(Na) blocking drugs, carriers had significantly longer PQ and QRS intervals and more increase in QRS duration. CONCLUSIONS We observed significantly longer conduction intervals on baseline ECG in patients with established SCN5A mutations (PQ and HV interval and, upon class I drugs, more QRS increase). These results concur with the observed loss of function of mutated BS-related sodium channels. Brugada syndrome patients with, and those without, an SCN5A mutation can be differentiated by phenotypical differences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Probst, V., Veltmann, C., Eckardt, L., Meregalli, P. G., Gaita, F., Tan, H. L., Babuty, D., Sacher, F., Giustetto, C., Schulze-Bahr, E., et al. (2010) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.109.887026 · Cited by 847
Self-citationMaury, P., Rollin, A., Sacher, F., Gourraud, J.-B., Raczka, F., Pasquié, J.-L., Duparc, A., Mondoly, P., Cardin, C., Delay, M., et al. (2013) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.06.033 · Cited by 111
Self-citationCUNHA, S., & MOHLER, P. (2006) · Cardiovascular Research · doi:10.1016/j.cardiores.2006.03.018 · Cited by 65
FUJIKI, A., SUGAO, M., NISHIDA, K., SAKABE, M., TSUNEDA, T., MIZUMAKI, K., & INOUE, H. (2004) · Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology · doi:10.1046/j.1540-8167.2004.03396.x · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Smits, J. P. P., Eckardt, L., Probst, V., Bezzina, C. R., Schott, J. J., Remme, C. A., Haverkamp, W., Breithardt, G., Escande, D., Schulze-Bahr, E., LeMarec, H., & Wilde, A. A. M.
- Venue
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 350-356
- ISSN
- 0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003377695
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.