4.5 Article

Clinical Impact of Genetic Studies in Lethal Inherited Cardiac Arrhythmias

Journal

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
Volume 72, Issue 12, Pages 1926-1936

Publisher

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-08-0947

Keywords

Brugada syndrome; Genotype; Ion channel; Long QT syndrome; Sudden death

Funding

  1. Ueliar Memorial Foundation
  2. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Over the past decade, molecular genetic studies have established a link between a number of inherited cardiac arrhythmias, including congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) and Brugada syndrome (BrS), and mutations in genes encoding for ion channels or other membrane components. Twelve forms of LQTS have been identified in 50-70% of clinically affected patients. Genotype-phenotype correlations have been rigorously investigated in LQT1, LQT2 and LQT3 syndromes, which constitute more than 90% of genotyped LQTS patients, enabling stratification of risk and effective treatment of genotyped patients. Genotype-specific triggers for both the cardiac events and the clinical course have been reported, and genotype-specific therapy has been already introduced. More recently, Mutation site-specific differences in the clinical phenotype have been reported in LQT1 and LQT2 patients, indicating the possibility of mutation site-specific management or treatment. In contrast. only one-third of BrS patients can be genotyped, and data on genotype-phenotype relationships in clinical studies are limited. A Haplotype B consisting of 6 individual DNA polymrphisms within the proximal promoter region of he SCN5A gene was recently identified only in Asians (frequency 22%). Individuals with Haplotype B show significantly longer duration of both PQ and QRS than those without Haplotype B, indicating that Haplotype B likely contributes to the higher incidence of BrS in Asian populations. (Circ J 2008; 72: 1926-1936)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available