AIM: To investigate whether levels of psychosocial impairment and psychological distress at diagnosis in those with vasovagal syncope (VVS) predict subsequent response to conventional treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a prospective, observational new patient cohort study, which includes consecutive patients with head-up tilt-confirmed VVS (September 2004-March 2006). Subjects completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, State and trait anxiety inventory, and an Adapted Syncope Functional Status Questionnaire at diagnosis and at 3 months. A total of 108 participants [mean (SD) age 52 (21) years, 70.4% were female] completed baseline assessments. Response status was ascertained for 103 individuals; 70 were responders and 33 non-responders. Eighty-three of 103 participants (81%) completed the follow-up questionnaires. At follow-up, compared with responders, non-responders reported higher levels of Impairment (P = 0.001), negative cognitions (P = 0.01), and depression scores (P = 0.006). At diagnosis those who ultimately did not respond to treatment reported significantly higher levels of Impairment (P < 0.001) and negative cognitions (P = 0.03). Those who did not respond to treatment were significantly more depressed (P = 0.001) with higher Trait anxiety scores (P = 0.007). Multivariate analysis confirmed increased impairment predicted poor response status (z = 9.82, P = 0.002) with participants being 3% more likely to be a non-responder with each 1% increase in self-reported level of impairment. CONCLUSION: Higher levels of psychosocial impairment reliably predict non-response to treatment, suggesting that psychological factors have an important role in VVS. Screening individuals at diagnosis may enable identification of those at risk of non-response and delivery of targeted psychological interventions to reduce the impact of VVS and its sequelae.
AIM: To investigate whether levels of psychosocial impairment and psychological distress at diagnosis in those with vasovagal syncope (VVS) predict subsequent response to conventional treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a prospective, observational new patient cohort study, which includes consecutive patients with head-up tilt-confirmed VVS (September 2004-March 2006). Subjects completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, State and trait anxiety inventory, and an Adapted Syncope Functional Status Questionnaire at diagnosis and at 3 months. A total of 108 participants [mean (SD) age 52 (21) years, 70.4% were female] completed baseline assessments. Response status was ascertained for 103 individuals; 70 were responders and 33 non-responders. Eighty-three of 103 participants (81%) completed the follow-up questionnaires. At follow-up, compared with responders, non-responders reported higher levels of Impairment (P = 0.001), negative cognitions (P = 0.01), and depression scores (P = 0.006). At diagnosis those who ultimately did not respond to treatment reported significantly higher levels of Impairment (P < 0.001) and negative cognitions (P = 0.03). Those who did not respond to treatment were significantly more depressed (P = 0.001) with higher Trait anxiety scores (P = 0.007). Multivariate analysis confirmed increased impairment predicted poor response status (z = 9.82, P = 0.002) with participants being 3% more likely to be a non-responder with each 1% increase in self-reported level of impairment. CONCLUSION: Higher levels of psychosocial impairment reliably predict non-response to treatment, suggesting that psychological factors have an important role in VVS. Screening individuals at diagnosis may enable identification of those at risk of non-response and delivery of targeted psychological interventions to reduce the impact of VVS and its sequelae.
Authors: Kenneth A Mayuga; Artur Fedorowski; Fabrizio Ricci; Rakesh Gopinathannair; Jonathan Walter Dukes; Christopher Gibbons; Peter Hanna; Dan Sorajja; Mina Chung; David Benditt; Robert Sheldon; Mirna B Ayache; Hiba AbouAssi; Kalyanam Shivkumar; Blair P Grubb; Mohamed H Hamdan; Stavros Stavrakis; Tamanna Singh; Jeffrey J Goldberger; James A S Muldowney; Mark Belham; David C Kem; Cem Akin; Barbara K Bruce; Nicole E Zahka; Qi Fu; Erik H Van Iterson; Satish R Raj; Fetnat Fouad-Tarazi; David S Goldstein; Julian Stewart; Brian Olshansky Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2022-09-08
Authors: Sung Ho Lee; Seung-Jung Park; Kyeongmin Byeon; Young Keun On; Hye Ran Yim; June Soo Kim Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: Adem Atici; Ramazan Asoglu; Ahmet Demirkiran; Nail Guven Serbest; Baris Emektas; Remzi Sarikaya; Ipek Yeldan; Ahmet Kaya Bilge Journal: North Clin Istanb Date: 2020-02-10
Authors: Nicola Magnavita; Reparata Rosa Di Prinzio; Gabriele Arnesano; Anna Cerrina; Maddalena Gabriele; Sergio Garbarino; Martina Gasbarri; Angela Iuliano; Marcella Labella; Carmela Matera; Igor Mauro; Franca Barbic Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-23 Impact factor: 3.390