Functional Characterization of a Novel Frameshift Mutation in the C-terminus of the Nav1.5 Channel Underlying a Brugada Syndrome with Variable Expression in a Spanish Family.

INTRODUCTION We functionally analyzed a frameshift mutation in the SCN5A gene encoding cardiac Na(+) channels (Nav1.5) found in a proband with repeated episodes of ventricular fibrillation who presented bradycardia and paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Seven relatives also carry the mutation and showed a Brugada syndrome with an incomplete and variable expression. The mutation (p.D1816VfsX7) resulted in a severe truncation (201 residues) of the Nav1.5 C-terminus. METHODS AND RESULTS Wild-type (WT) and mutated Nav1.5 channels together with hNavβ1 were expressed in CHO cells and currents were recorded at room temperature using the whole-cell patch-clamp. Expression of p.D1816VfsX7 alone resulted in a marked reduction (≈90%) in peak Na(+) current density compared with WT channels. Peak current density generated by p.D1816VfsX7+WT was ≈50% of that generated by WT channels. p.D1816VfsX7 positively shifted activation and inactivation curves, leading to a significant reduction of the window current. The mutation accelerated current activation and reactivation kinetics and increased the fraction of channels developing slow inactivation with prolonged depolarizations. However, late INa was not modified by the mutation. p.D1816VfsX7 produced a marked reduction of channel trafficking toward the membrane that was not restored by decreasing incubation temperature during cell culture or by incubation with 300 μM mexiletine and 5 mM 4-phenylbutirate. CONCLUSION Despite a severe truncation of the C-terminus, the resulting mutated channels generate currents, albeit with reduced amplitude and altered biophysical properties, confirming the key role of the C-terminal domain in the expression and function of the cardiac Na(+) channel.

Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function.

BACKGROUND Very few data exist on the clinical impact of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of PPI after transcatheter aortic valve implantation on late outcomes in a large cohort of patients. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 1556 consecutive patients without prior PPI undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation were included. Of them, 239 patients (15.4%) required a PPI within the first 30 days after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. At a mean follow-up of 22±17 months, no association was observed between the need for 30-day PPI and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.30; P=0.871), cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.17; P=0.270), and all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.30; P=0.980). A lower rate of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death was observed in patients with PPI (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.85; P=0.023). Patients with new PPI showed a poorer evolution of left ventricular ejection fraction over time (P=0.017), and new PPI was an independent predictor of left ventricular ejection fraction decrease at the 6- to 12-month follow-up (estimated coefficient, -2.26; 95% confidence interval, -4.07 to -0.44; P=0.013; R(2)=0.121). CONCLUSIONS The need for PPI was a frequent complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, but it was not associated with any increase in overall or cardiovascular death or rehospitalization for heart failure after a mean follow-up of ≈2 years. Indeed, 30-day PPI was a protective factor for the occurrence of unexpected (sudden or unknown) death. However, new PPI did have a negative effect on left ventricular function over time.

Left ventricular assist device.

To the Editor: The value of angiotensin-converting– enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and spironolactone has been well established by the results of numerous clinical trials. About 70 percent of the patients described by Rose et al. were treated with ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II–receptor antagonists; 35 to 40 percent received spironolactone, and only about 20 percent received beta-blockers. Thus, this population cannot have been considered to be optimally treated from the point of view of medical therapy.