Dirk P Saal1, M Jolein Overdijk1, Roland D Thijs1, Irene M van Vliet1, J Gert van Dijk2. 1. From the Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology (D.P.S., J.G.v.D.) and Psychiatry (I.M.v.V.), Leiden University Medical Center; Department of Neurology (M.J.O.), Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague; and Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (R.D.T.), Heemstede, the Netherlands. 2. From the Departments of Neurology and Clinical Neurophysiology (D.P.S., J.G.v.D.) and Psychiatry (I.M.v.V.), Leiden University Medical Center; Department of Neurology (M.J.O.), Medical Center Haaglanden, The Hague; and Stichting Epilepsie Instellingen Nederland (R.D.T.), Heemstede, the Netherlands. j.g.van_dijk@lumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcome of patients with psychogenic pseudosyncope (PPS) after communication of the diagnosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with PPS referred in 2007 to 2015 to a tertiary referral center for syncope. We reviewed patient records and studied attack frequency, factors affecting attack frequency, health care use, and quality of life using a questionnaire. We explored influences on attack freedom and attack frequency in the 6 months before follow-up for age, sex, education level, duration until diagnosis, probability of diagnosis, additional syncope, and acceptance of diagnosis. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 57 patients with PPS could be traced, of whom 35 (74%) participated. Twelve (34%) were attack-free for at least 6 months. The median time from diagnosis to follow-up was 50 months (range 6-103 months). Communicating and explaining the diagnosis resulted in immediate reduction of attack frequency (p = 0.007) from the month before diagnosis (median one attack, range 0-156) to the month after (median one attack, range 0-16). In the 6 months before follow-up, the number of admissions decreased from 19 of 35 to 0 of 35 (p = 0.002). The use of somatic and mental health care shifted toward the latter (p < 0.0001). Quality of life at follow-up (Short Form Health Survey 36) showed lower scores for 7 of 8 domains compared to matched Dutch control values; quality of life was not influenced by attack freedom. CONCLUSIONS: After communication of the diagnosis in PPS, attack frequency decreased and health care use shifted toward mental care. Low quality of life underlines that PPS is a serious condition.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcome of patients with psychogenic pseudosyncope (PPS) after communication of the diagnosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with PPS referred in 2007 to 2015 to a tertiary referral center for syncope. We reviewed patient records and studied attack frequency, factors affecting attack frequency, health care use, and quality of life using a questionnaire. We explored influences on attack freedom and attack frequency in the 6 months before follow-up for age, sex, education level, duration until diagnosis, probability of diagnosis, additional syncope, and acceptance of diagnosis. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 57 patients with PPS could be traced, of whom 35 (74%) participated. Twelve (34%) were attack-free for at least 6 months. The median time from diagnosis to follow-up was 50 months (range 6-103 months). Communicating and explaining the diagnosis resulted in immediate reduction of attack frequency (p = 0.007) from the month before diagnosis (median one attack, range 0-156) to the month after (median one attack, range 0-16). In the 6 months before follow-up, the number of admissions decreased from 19 of 35 to 0 of 35 (p = 0.002). The use of somatic and mental health care shifted toward the latter (p < 0.0001). Quality of life at follow-up (Short Form Health Survey 36) showed lower scores for 7 of 8 domains compared to matched Dutch control values; quality of life was not influenced by attack freedom. CONCLUSIONS: After communication of the diagnosis in PPS, attack frequency decreased and health care use shifted toward mental care. Low quality of life underlines that PPS is a serious condition.
Authors: N K Aaronson; M Muller; P D Cohen; M L Essink-Bot; M Fekkes; R Sanderman; M A Sprangers; A te Velde; E Verrips Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Daniel L Drane; Suzette M LaRoche; Geeta A Ganesh; Diane Teagarden; David W Loring Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 2.937
Authors: N M G Bodde; J L Brooks; G A Baker; P A J M Boon; J G M Hendriksen; O G Mulder; A P Aldenkamp Journal: Seizure Date: 2009-08-13 Impact factor: 3.184
Authors: Juan Villafane; Jacob R Miller; Julie Glickstein; Jonathan N Johnson; Jonathan Wagner; Chris S Snyder; Tatiana Filina; Scott L Pomeroy; S Kristen Sexson-Tejtel; Caitlin Haxel; Jason Gottlieb; Pirooz Eghtesady; Devyani Chowdhury Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 1.655