Literature DB >> 7137203

Value and limitations of clinical electrophysiologic study in assessment of patients with unexplained syncope.

S Gulamhusein, G V Naccarelli, P T Ko, E N Prystowsky, D P Zipes, H J Barnett, J J Heger, G J Klein.   

Abstract

We assessed the value of clinical electrophysiologic study using intracardiac recording and programed electrical stimulation in 34 patients who had unexplained syncope and/or presyncope. All patients had normal electrocardiograms, and no abnormality was detected by clinical examination, ambulatory electrocardiographic recording, or treadmill testing. The electrophysiologic results were diagnostic in four patients (11.8 percent) and led to appropriate therapy that totally relieved symptoms. The results were abnormal but not diagnostic in two patients (5.8 percent) and normal in the remaining 28 patients (82.4 percent). The patients were followed for a mean period of 15 months (range two to 44) after electrophysiologic testing. Sixteen patients (47 percent) had no further episodes in the absence of any intervention. In four patients (11.8 percent), a definitive diagnosis was made during follow-up. In seven patients, permanent pacing was instituted empirically with relief of syncope. Two patients continued to have syncopal spells. We conclude that the diagnostic yield of electrophysiologic testing is low in a patient population that has no electrocardiographic abnormality or clinical evidence of cardiac disease. Empirical permanent pacing in patients with symptoms continuing after our study appeared to be beneficial, but this result is difficult to evaluate because of the high incidence of spontaneous remission in this group. Persistent attempts to document electrocardiographic abnormalities during a typical episode of symptoms appears to be the only definitive way to confirm or exclude an arrhythmic cause of the symptoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1982        PMID: 7137203     DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90413-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Med        ISSN: 0002-9343            Impact factor:   4.965


  14 in total

Review 1.  Bayesian quantitative electrophysiology and its multiple applications in bioengineering.

Authors:  Roger C Barr; Loren W Nolte; Andrew E Pollard
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2010

Review 2.  Evaluation of syncope.

Authors:  M Yousuf Kanjwal; Blair P Grubb
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Score indices for predicting electrophysiologic outcomes in patients with unexplained syncope.

Authors:  Lin Y Chen; Arshad Jahangir; Wyatt W Decker; Peter A Smars; Wouter Wieling; David O Hodge; Bernard J Gersh; Stephen C Hammill; Win-Kuang Shen
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 4.  Physical diagnosis versus modern technology. A review.

Authors:  F T Fitzgerald
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1990-04

5.  Efficacy of empirical cardiac pacing in syncope of unknown cause.

Authors:  M F Rattes; G J Klein; A D Sharma; J A Boone; C Kerr; S Milstein
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1989-02-15       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Approach to syncope.

Authors:  W T Branch
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1986 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Syncope.

Authors:  A D Ormerod
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1984-04-21

8.  A case of respiratory sinus arrhythmia and vasovagal attacks: use of cosinor analysis for diagnosis and for monitoring treatment.

Authors:  G R Pai; J M Rawles
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1987-06

9.  Arrhythmic syncope: what to do when ambulatory monitoring is non-diagnostic.

Authors:  R P Lewis; H Boudoulas; S Voto; S F Schaal; J M Stang
Journal:  Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc       Date:  1985

10.  Unexpected myocardial disease in patients with life threatening arrhythmias.

Authors:  J D Hosenpud; J H McAnulty; N R Niles
Journal:  Br Heart J       Date:  1986-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.