To the Editor,

We read with great interest the excellent review by Benito et al1 in the Revista. Not only did the authors explain the basic concepts of the syndrome, they also pointed the way to future directions concerning its diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Given the importance of this review, we feel it is relevant to point out an aspect that appears in the final figure (Figure 12) which gives rise to certain doubts. In the asymptomatic patient with a drug-inducible type I electrocardiographic pattern the authors point out that electrophysiologic study is a class IIa indication, based on the second consensus document on Brugada syndrome published by Antzelevitch et al2 in 2005. However, in the document in question it figures as a class IIb indication, which in this case also means a class IIb indication for the implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator. We believe it necessary to clarify whether this was simply a mistake or, on the other hand and given that some authors consider it indicated as a prognostic tool,3 the authors have purposely modified the figure in the consensus document.