4.7 Article

An Implantable loop recorder study of highly symptomatic vasovagal patients - The heart rhythm observed during a spontaneous syncope is identical to the recurrent syncope but not correlated with the head-up tilt test or adenosine triphosphate test

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.09.043

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to analyze the heart rhythm during spontaneous vasovagal syncope (VVS) in highly symptomatic patients with implantable loop recorders (ILR) and to correlate this rhythm with the heart rhythm observed during head-up tilt test (HUT). BACKGROUND Heart rhythm obtained during provocative condition is often used to guide therapy in VVS. To date there is no conclusive evidence that the heart rhythm observed during a positive HUT can predict heart rhythm during VVS or that the heart rhythm observed during a spontaneous syncope will be identical to the recurrent syncope. METHODS Twenty-five consecutive VVS patients (age 60.2 +/- 17.1 years; 14 women,) presenting with frequent syncopes (6.9 +/- 4.6 episodes/year) and a positive HUT (cardioinhibitory in 8 patients) were implanted with an ILR. Seven of them also had a positive adenosine triphosphate (ATP) test. RESULTS Follow-up was 17.0 +/- 3.6 months. Thirty VVS were observed in 12 patients. Nine episodes showed bradycardia of <40 beats/min or asystole; progressive sinus bradycardia preceding sinus arrest was the most frequent electrocardiographic finding. Twenty-one syncopes occurred without severe bradycardia. The heart rhythm observed during the first syncope was identical to the recurrence. No correlation was found between slow heart rate at the ILR interrogation and a cardioinhibitory HUT response (p = 1.0) or a positive ATP test (p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS In highly symptomatic patients with VVS, the heart rhythm observed during spontaneous syncope does not correlate with the HUT. The heart rhythm during the first spontaneous syncope is identical to the recurrent syncope.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据