| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Circulation. 2001;104:46.)
© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Randomized Assessment of Syncope Trial
Conventional Diagnostic Testing Versus a Prolonged Monitoring Strategy
From the Division of Cardiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Background—Establishing a diagnosis in patients with unexplained syncope is complicated by infrequent and unpredictable events. Prolonged monitoring may be an alternative strategy to conventional testing with short-term monitoring and provocative tilt and electrophysiological testing.
Methods and Results—Sixty patients (aged 66±14 years, 33 male) with unexplained syncope were randomized to "conventional" testing with an external loop recorder and tilt and electrophysiological testing or to prolonged monitoring with an implantable loop recorder with 1 year of monitoring. If patients remained undiagnosed after their assigned strategy, they were offered crossover to the alternate strategy. A diagnosis was obtained in 14 of 27 patients randomized to prolonged monitoring compared with 6 of 30 patients undergoing conventional testing (52% versus 20%, P=0.012). Crossover was associated with a diagnosis in 1 of 6 patients undergoing conventional testing compared with 8 of 13 patients who completed monitoring (17% versus 62%, P=0.069). Overall, prolonged monitoring was more likely to result in a diagnosis than was conventional testing (55% versus 19%, P=0.0014). Bradycardia was detected in 14 patients undergoing monitoring compared with 3 patients undergoing conventional testing (40% versus 8%, P=0.005).
Conclusions—A prolonged monitoring strategy is more likely to provide a diagnosis than conventional testing in patients with unexplained syncope. Consideration should be given to earlier implementation of a monitoring strategy.
Key Words: syncope • diagnosis • electrophysiology • tests
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The current approach to the investigation of patients with unexplained syncope involves short-term ECG monitoring or provocative testing with head-up tilt and electrophysiological testing.1 2 3 4 Provocative testing may be negative, or the results may be difficult to interpret. Difficulties may include the induction of abnormalities that do not reproduce the patients’ spontaneous symptoms or the need to infer a diagnosis based on limited observed abnormalities, such as nonsustained ventricular arrhythmias or ventricular fibrillation induced by multiple closely coupled extrastimuli.5 6
A prolonged monitoring strategy using an implantable loop recorder (ILR) has been reported to provide a symptom-rhythm correlation in a high proportion of patients with recurrent unexplained syncope and negative investigations.7 8 Use of prolonged monitoring may have merit as an initial strategy in many patients with problematic syncope. We report a prospective randomized comparison of these 2 diagnostic strategies in 60 patients with recurrent unexplained syncope.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Patients
Patients referred to the Arrhythmia Service at London Health Sciences Center for investigation of syncope were approached to participate in a prospective randomized trial comparing 2 diagnostic approaches to syncope. Consecutive patients were approached to participate in the trial if they had recurrent unexplained syncope or a single episode of syncope associated with injury that warranted cardiovascular investigation. Before enrollment, patients underwent a clinical assessment, including postural blood pressure testing, a minimum of 24 hours of baseline ambulatory monitoring or inpatient telemetry, and a transthoracic echocardiogram. The baseline Holter assessment was considered negative if the patient did not experience syncope or presyncope reminiscent of their referral symptoms during the recording and did not have evidence of asymptomatic second- or third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block, pauses >3 seconds, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, or >10 beats of wide QRS complex tachycardia likely to represent ventricular tachycardia. Additional neurological or cardiovascular testing before enrollment performed by the referring physician was recorded but was not mandated by the protocol. Patients were permitted to have a previous tilt test or loop recorder if symptoms suggested that repeat testing was indicated. Patients were excluded if the left ventricular ejection fraction was <35%, if they were unlikely to survive for 1 year, or if they were unable to provide follow-up or give informed consent. Patients with a presentation typical of neurally mediated syncope at baseline assessment were considered to have this diagnosis and were excluded. This included upright posture with a prodrome including warmth and diaphoresis, with postepisode fatigue. No patient refused enrollment.
Diagnostic Testing
Patients were randomized to a "conventional"
investigation strategy or a prolonged monitoring strategy with use of
an ILR. Conventional testing included a 2- to 4-week period of
monitoring with an external loop recorder, followed by tilt table,
and electrophysiological testing. Tilt
testing was performed with the use of 60° head-up tilt for 30 minutes
with continuous ECG and noninvasive blood pressure monitoring. If no
response occurred, intravenous isoproterenol was
administered at 1 µg/min and titrated to a 25% increase in heart
rate for an additional 15 minutes. A positive test was defined when
syncope or presyncope occurred, accompanied by a >30 mm Hg fall
in blood pressure, with or without a drop in heart rate. A protocol
identical to this with 15 minutes of passive tilt has previously been
shown to have a 61% sensitivity and 93% specificity in our
laboratory.9 An additional 15
minutes of passive tilt was added before isoproterenol to enhance
sensitivity.
Electrophysiological studies were performed in the postabsorptive unsedated state. Standard multipolar catheters were inserted into the right femoral vein and placed in the high right atrium and right ventricle and near the His bundle. Sinus node recovery time, sinoatrial conduction time, and antegrade and retrograde AV node function were assessed by using atrial and ventricular pacing and extrastimuli. Programmed electrical stimulation was performed at the right ventricular apex at a drive cycle length of 600 and 400 ms for 8 beats, followed by up to 3 extrastimuli. This protocol has been found to be 90% sensitive for induction of ventricular tachycardia in patients with spontaneous ventricular tachycardia in our laboratory.10 A positive test was defined as induction of ventricular tachycardia >30 seconds in duration or requiring urgent intervention, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, a corrected sinus node recovery time >550 ms, or an HV interval >75 ms.
Patients randomized to a prolonged monitoring strategy underwent implantation of a Reveal ILR (Medtronic) under local anesthetic in the left chest region after administration of 1 g of intravenous cefazolin. Details of the ILR have been reported.7 8 11 The ILR is a continuous ECG monitor capable of recording up to 42 minutes of a single-lead ECG. After spontaneous symptoms, the patient uses an activator over the device to "freeze" the preceding ECG, which can be downloaded with a standard pacemaker programmer (Medtronic 9290C). After implantation, the patient, along with a spouse, family member, or friend, was instructed in the use of the activator. The patients randomized to the monitoring strategy underwent follow-up for 1 year. For the purpose of analysis in the monitoring strategy, a diagnosis was defined as obtaining a symptom-rhythm correlation in patients during spontaneous syncope or presyncope that resembled the symptoms before enrollment.
Crossover
If the assigned strategy did not provide a diagnosis,
patients were offered crossover to the alternate strategy. An ILR was
offered to all conventional patients immediately after tilt and
electrophysiological testing was negative.
Tilt and electrophysiological testing were
offered to the patients subjected to monitoring if a diagnosis was not
obtained after 1 year of follow-up. All patients provided informed
consent. The protocol was approved by the University of Western Ontario
Institutional Review Board.
The baseline ECG and echocardiogram were assessed to diagnose right and left bundle branch block (conduction disturbance), valvular heart disease (valve lesion graded moderate or greater), cardiomyopathy, ischemic heart disease, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The diagnosis of cardiomyopathy and ischemic heart disease also integrated available findings from cardiac catheterization, other noninvasive testing, and the clinical history. Dilated cardiomyopathy (cardiomyopathy, n=3) was defined as a global reduction in left ventricular function that was not explained on the basis of coronary artery disease (left ventricular ejection fraction <55%). Ischemic heart disease was diagnosed in the presence of previous coronary artery bypass surgery, documented myocardial infarction, or treated angina after clinical investigation, including stress testing, perfusion imaging, and/or cardiac catheterization. Structural heart disease was considered present when valvular heart disease, cardiomyopathy, or ischemic heart disease was diagnosed on the basis of the definitions above.
Follow-Up
Patients were seen 1 week after loop recorder
implantation for wound assessment and to reinforce patient
understanding of the activation process. Subsequent follow-up occurred
at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Patients were seen immediately after a
symptomatic event.
Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were compared by Student
t test and ANOVA. Categorical
variables were compared with a 
2
test. A value of P<0.05 was
considered significant.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
In the present study, 60 patients with unexplained syncope were randomized over a 30-month period. Syncope was recurrent in 53 patients. Seven patients had a single episode of syncope that was felt to warrant cardiovascular testing, 3 patients had valvular heart disease, and 2 patients had coronary artery disease. There was no difference in baseline variables between groups (Table
).
Structural heart disease was present in 23 patients (38%). Left
ventricular function was well preserved in most patients,
with an ejection fraction <50% in only 6 patients. Two patients had a
previous negative tilt test. Before enrollment, neurological testing
was performed in 36 patients (60%), with brain imaging in 25 (42%)
and an electroencephalogram in 19 (32%).
|
Primary Strategy
In the 30 patients randomized to a monitoring strategy,
a diagnosis was obtained in 14
(Figure 1). In 10 patients, bradycardia was noted during
symptoms. In 1 patient, a regular narrow complex
tachycardia at 240 bpm was noted. In 3 patients, heart rate
fluctuation during symptoms along with clinical assessment led to the
diagnosis of vasovagal syncope, with gradual slowing to 40 bpm in 1
patient and to 25 bpm in 1 patient. In the third patient with
oscillation of heart rate between 50 and 100 bpm, tilt
testing at 80° reproduced spontaneous symptoms and confirmed the
diagnosis. These 3 patients were advised to increase salt and water
intake. In 12 patients, symptoms did not recur during the 12-month
follow-up period. One patient failed to appropriately activate
the loop recorder after an episode of syncope, and no further
episodes occurred after the failure. Three patients remained in
follow-up with a loop recorder implanted. In the 30 patients in the
conventional arm, a diagnosis was obtained in 6 patients (20% for
conventional treatment versus 52% for monitoring,
P=0.012). One patient had
symptomatic third-degree AV block while wearing an external
loop recorder, and 2 patients had a positive tilt test.
Electrophysiological testing demonstrated poor AV
node function in 2 patients and inducible ventricular
tachycardia in 1 patient.
|
Crossover
Six of the 13 patients who remained undiagnosed after 1
year of monitoring consented to crossover to conventional testing
(Figure 2). Because of the previous monitoring, patients did
not undergo short-term monitoring with an external loop recorder.
Tilt testing was negative in all 6.
Electrophysiological testing induced sustained AV
node reentrant tachycardia associated with hypotension in 1
patient. This patient underwent slow pathway ablation.
|
Twenty-one of 24 patients with negative conventional testing
underwent implantation of a loop recorder. During follow-up, a
diagnosis was obtained in 8 patients, symptoms did not recur in 5
patients during 12 months of follow up, and 8 patients remained in
follow-up. Three of the latter 8 patients experienced a recurrent
symptom but failed to activate the loop recorder; 1 event
was attributed to activator failure. In the 8 patients that
were diagnosed, bradycardia was noted in 4
(Figure 3), and tachycardia was noted in 2. Two
patients had sinus rhythm recorded during syncope, with phasic
motion artifact on the recorded signal suggestive of seizure
activity.12 Both patients
had a normal electroencephalogram before enrollment in the study.
Neurological consultation led to empiric anticonvulsant therapy, with
resolution of symptoms. In the 13 patients who completed a monitoring
strategy in crossover, 5 achieved a diagnosis, compared with 1 of 6
patients who crossed over to provocative testing (62%
versus 17%, respectively;
P=0.069). Combining the primary
strategy with crossover, the overall likelihood of being diagnosed was
55% with a monitoring strategy compared with 19% with conventional
testing (P=0.0014). In the 51
patients that received an ILR, symptoms recurred in 3 patients within 1
month of implantation (6%). The mean time to recurrence was
117±106 days (median 93 days). No patient had infection at the site of
implantation.
|
Diagnoses
Conventional Strategy
Conventional testing with an external loop recorder
was associated with symptom recurrence in only 1 patient with
third-degree AV block. Tilt testing was also of low yield, with a
positive test in only 2 patients.
Electrophysiological testing induced AV block with
incremental pacing <100 bpm in 2 patients, leading to pacemaker
implantation. One patient had inducible sustained monomorphic
ventricular tachycardia associated with
hypotension and was treated with an implantable defibrillator. A second
patient had inducible sustained AV node reentrant
tachycardia that was successfully ablated. Symptoms have
resolved in all 7 patients diagnosed with a conventional
strategy.
Monitoring Strategy
The monitoring strategy was more likely to detect
arrhythmias, with symptomatic bradycardia detected
in 14 patients. These subsequently underwent pacemaker implantation. As
described above, 3 patients demonstrated heart rate fluctuation with a
history in keeping with of vasovagal syncope. Tachycardia
associated with presyncope was detected in 3 patients: a regular narrow
complex tachycardia at 150 bpm felt to represent
atrial flutter was present in 2 patients, and a narrow complex
tachycardia at 240 bpm was detected in 1 patient. All 3
patients were treated with antiarrhythmic drug therapy after clinical
assessment. Two patients were diagnosed with seizure disorder as
indicated above. Neurological consultation led to empiric
anticonvulsant therapy, with resolution of symptoms. One patient in the
monitoring strategy died of a cerebrovascular accident 10 months after
enrollment.
Bradycardia
Bradycardia was detected in 14 patients undergoing
monitoring compared with 3 patients undergoing conventional testing
(40% versus 8%, respectively;
P=0.005). In the 17 patients
with bradycardia, AV block was detected in 8 patients, and sinus
bradycardia or asystole was detected in 9. The mean age of the
bradycardia patients was 63±14 years compared with 66±14 years in
patients with other diagnoses and 67±14 years in patients that were
undiagnosed (P=0.66). Four of
the 12 patients with baseline conduction system abnormalities on ECG
developed subsequent complete AV block (33% in those with
abnormalities versus 27% in those without baseline conduction
disturbances). Three of these patients had left bundle branch
block; incomplete right bundle branch block was present in the
other patient. One patient was diagnosed with an external loop
recorder, 1 patient had a negative electrophysiology study and was
diagnosed after crossing over to monitoring, and the remaining 2 were
identified during their primary strategy of monitoring. The remaining 4
patients with AV block had a normal baseline ECG. In those patients who
experienced bradycardia during monitoring leading to pacemaker
implantation, the bradycardia was associated with syncope in 10
patients and presyncope in 4.
Follow-Up
Syncope resolved in 27 of the 29 patients that were
diagnosed during the 19.3±8.9 months of follow-up after a diagnosis
was obtained. In 1 patient, negative conventional testing was followed
by an ILR, which recorded a 38-second pause associated with syncope
7 months after implantation. A pacemaker was implanted. Eleven months
later, the patient had an episode of syncope in the bathroom
reminiscent of neurally mediated syncope, which has not recurred during
the ensuing 12 months. The latter episode was not reminiscent of his
index episodes. In the final patient, a primary monitoring strategy
recorded an episode of marked sinus bradycardia followed by a
10-second pause associated with syncope 3 months after ILR
implantation. Six months after pacemaker implantation, he began having
episodes of confusion, disorientation, and transient unresponsiveness
unlike his syncopal episodes before enrollment. Subsequent tilt testing
was negative, and neurological assessment led to a diagnosis of partial
complex seizures arising in the temporal lobe and anticonvulsant
therapy.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The etiology of syncope is often difficult to determine when initial investigations are negative. Referral for cardiovascular testing typically involves short-term monitoring, followed by provocative tilt and electrophysiological testing. This prospective randomized trial suggests that an initial prolonged monitoring is associated with a considerably higher diagnostic yield than a conventional strategy and may be considered earlier in the approach to patients with unexplained syncope.
Tilt testing is reported to have a sensitivity of 67% to
83% and a specificity of
90%.2 6 13 14 15
This estimate includes patients with a clinical
presentation that is likely to represent neurally
mediated syncope. The present study excluded younger patients whose
history strongly suggested neurally mediated syncope, in whom tilt
testing would be more likely to be
positive.6 We excluded these
patients because we felt that the diagnosis was clinically evident
regardless of the result of tilt testing, and an invasive approach
including electrophysiological testing and
an ILR was not justified.
Electrophysiological testing is most likely to detect abnormalities in patients with structural heart disease.2 5 16 17 18 19 20 This is particularly the case in patients with previous myocardial infarction and reduced left ventricular function who are at risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Syncope in the presence of significant structural heart disease is a class I indication for electrophysiological testing.21 We excluded these patients because of concern that a monitoring strategy was unsafe, relying on recurrence of a potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia. The low yield of electrophysiological testing in our patients is consistent with the reported yield in patients without structural heart disease.5 22 Nonetheless, electrophysiological testing does provide reassurance to the patient and physician that the risk of sudden death is low. The absence of recurrent ventricular arrhythmias during subsequent monitoring emphasizes the exclusion of patients with depressed left ventricular function at risk for sudden death.
The yield of a monitoring strategy in unexplained syncope is in keeping with previous reports, suggesting that an arrhythmia will be detected in 25% to 46% of patients and excluded in 34% to 42%.8 23 Monitoring was particularly useful for detection of intermittent bradycardia, which is frequently missed at electrophysiology study.24 Because of the relative infrequency of symptoms, short-term monitoring and electrophysiological testing have a low yield for detection of bradycardia.24 25 26 27 The present study suggests that prolonged monitoring has become the investigative tool of choice when this diagnosis is suspected.
When sinus rhythm was recorded during recurrent symptoms, an arrhythmia was excluded. A monitoring strategy may rule out an arrhythmia without necessarily providing a diagnosis. Exclusion of an arrhythmia often alleviates the concerns of both the patient and physician regarding the potential for life-threatening arrhythmias and allows the focus of further investigations to shift to other areas. Many of these patients are likely to have neurally mediated syncope. In the present study, clues to the diagnosis were obtained during symptom-rhythm correlation and repeat clinical assessment. Neurally mediated syncope was diagnosed in the context of a typical cardioinhibitory response in 2 patients, with heart rate fluctuation and symptoms in the third. Seizure activity was fortuitously detected as artifact during sinus rhythm in 2 patients. This finding directed the investigations and treatment and has previously been recognized.12 Although the current device monitors cardiac rhythm, expansion of monitoring capabilities to include other physiological parameters, including blood pressure and brain electrical function, would enhance the ability to correlate spontaneous symptoms with physiological status.
A monitoring strategy was more likely to provide a diagnosis as both a primary and a crossover approach. The latter is not surprising, given the proven efficacy of this approach in recurrent unexplained syncope with negative tilt and electrophysiological testing.7 The higher yield of the monitoring strategy compared with conventional testing suggests that a monitoring strategy with an ILR should be considered at an earlier stage in the diagnostic approach to patients with unexplained syncope.
Limitations of the Study
Diagnostic performance of
investigative approaches is clearly influenced by patient selection.
The low yield of the conventional approach probably reflects the
population studied. We focused on patients with unexplained syncope
after clinical assessment, excluding patients with a high pretest
probability of neurally mediated syncope or ventricular
arrhythmia. This selection bias led to assessment in an older
population without serious structural heart disease. The role of a
monitoring strategy in other patient groups is unproven. A more
aggressive tilt protocol would have been more sensitive but would have
reduced specificity. We used a widely accepted protocol with balanced
sensitivity and specificity based on experience in our own tilt
laboratory.9 Clearly, an
implanted loop recorder is not meant to supplant tilt testing but
rather to be considered earlier in the diagnostic cascade
of patients with unexplained syncope. Less invasive testing is often
preferable to both the patient and physician, even if
diagnostic yield may be lower. Finally, patients were
recruited at a single center in the present study. Nonetheless, the
diagnostic yield of the prolonged monitoring strategy was
comparable to that of larger studies from multiple
centers.8
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
In patients with recurrent unexplained syncope without major structural heart disease, bradyarrhythmias are a frequent cause of syncope. In these patients, consideration should be given to earlier implementation of prolonged monitoring.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This study was supported by grant NA3397 from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. Dr Krahn is a Research Scholar of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. The authors would like to thank Bonnie Spindler for her assistance in patient recruitment, education, and data collection.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Reprint requests to Dr Andrew Krahn, London Health Sciences Center, University Campus, 339 Windermere Rd, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5A5.
Drs Klein and Yee serve as consultants to Medtronic; Dr Krahn serves as a member of Medtronic’s advisory panel.
Received January 31, 2001; revision received April 5, 2001; accepted April 6, 2001.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsReferences |
|---|
1. Kapoor WN, Hammill SC, Gersh BJ. Diagnosis and natural history of syncope and the role of invasive electrophysiologic testing. Am J Cardiol. 1989;63:730–734.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Sra JS, Anderson AJ, Sheikh SH, et al. Unexplained syncope evaluated by electrophysiologic studies and head-up tilt testing. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:1013–1019.
3. Kapoor WN, Karpf M, Wieand S, et al. A prospective evaluation and follow-up of patients with syncope. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:197–204.[Abstract]
4. Manolis AS, Linzer M, Salem D, et al. Syncope: current diagnostic evaluation and management. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:850–863.
5.
Klein GJ, Gersh BJ,
Yee R. Electrophysiological testing: the final
court of appeal for diagnosis of syncope?
Circulation. 1995;92:1332–1335.
6. Kapoor WN, Smith MA, Miller NL. Upright tilt testing in evaluating syncope: a comprehensive literature review. Am J Med. 1994;97:78–88.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7.
Krahn AD, Klein GJ,
Norris C, et al. The etiology of syncope in patients with negative tilt
table and electrophysiological testing.
Circulation. 1995;92:1819–1824.
8.
Krahn AD, Klein GJ,
Yee R, et al. Use of an extended monitoring strategy in patients with
problematic syncope: Reveal Investigators.
Circulation. 1999;99:406–410.
9. Morillo CA, Klein GJ, Zandri S, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a low-dose isoproterenol head-up tilt protocol. Am Heart J. 1995;129:901–906.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Li HG, Thakur RK, Yee R, et al. The value of electrophysiologic testing in patients resuscitated from documented ventricular fibrillation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1994;5:805–809.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Lee RT, Cook EF, Day SC, et al. Long-term survival after transient loss of consciousness. J Gen Intern Med. 1988;3:337–343.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Simpson CS, Barlow MA, Krahn AD, et al. Recurrent seizure diagnosed by the insertable loop recorder (ILR). J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2000;4:475–479.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Grubb BP, Kosinski D. Tilt table testing: concepts and limitations. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997;20(pt 2):781–797.
14. Calkins H, Kadish A, Sousa J, et al. Comparison of responses to isoproterenol and epinephrine during head-up tilt in suspected vasodepressor syncope. Am J Cardiol. 1991;67:207–209.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Waxman MB, Yao L, Cameron DA, et al. Isoproterenol induction of vasodepressor-type reaction in vasodepressor- prone persons. Am J Cardiol. 1989;63:58–65.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Akhtar M, Shenasa M, Denker S, et al. Role of cardiac electrophysiologic studies in patients with unexplained recurrent syncope. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1983;6(pt 1):192–201.
17. Doherty JU, Pembrook-Rogers D, Grogan EW, et al. Electrophysiologic evaluation and follow-up characteristics of patients with recurrent unexplained syncope and presyncope. Am J Cardiol. 1985;55:703–708.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18.
Muller T, Roy D,
Talajic M, et al. Electrophysiologic evaluation and outcome of patients
with syncope of unknown origin. Eur
Heart J. 1991;12:139–143.
19.
Denes P, Uretz E,
Ezri MD, et al. Clinical predictors of electrophysiologic findings in
patients with syncope of unknown origin.
Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:1922–1928.
20. Olshansky B, Mazuz M, Martins JB, Significance of inducible tachycardia in patients with syncope of unknown origin: a long-term follow-up. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1985;5(pt 1):216–223.
21. Zipes DP, DiMarco JP, Gillette, et al. Guidelines for clinical intracardiac electrophysiological and catheter ablation procedures: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Clinical Intracardiac Electrophysiologic and Catheter Ablation Procedures), developed in collaboration with the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:555–573.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22.
Linzer M, Yang
EH, Estes NA, et al. Diagnosing syncope, 2: unexplained syncope:
Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American College of
Physicians Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:76–86.
23. Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Yee R, et al. Final results from a pilot study with an implantable loop recorder to determine the etiology of syncope in patients with negative noninvasive and invasive testing. Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:117–119.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Fujimura O, Yee R, Klein GJ, et al. The diagnostic sensitivity of electrophysiologic testing in patients with syncope caused by transient bradycardia. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:1703–1707.[Abstract]
25.
Brown AP, Dawkins
KD, Davies JG. Detection of arrhythmias: use of a
patient-activated ambulatory electrocardiogram
device with a solid-state memory loop. Br
Heart J. 1987;58:251–253.
26. Cumbee SR, Pryor RE, Linzer M. Cardiac loop ECG recording: a new noninvasive diagnostic test in recurrent syncope. South Med J. 1990;83:39–43.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27. Kapoor WN. Diagnostic evaluation of syncope. Am J Med. 1991;90:91–106.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  Developed in collaboration with, European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Heart Failure Association (HFA), and Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), Endorsed by the following societies, European Society of Emergency Medicine (EuSEM), European Federation of Internal Medicine (EFIM), European Union Geriatric Medicine Society (EUGMS), American Geriatrics Society (AGS), European Neurological Society (ENS), et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of syncope (version 2009): The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Syncope of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Eur. Heart J., November 1, 2009; 30(21): 2631 - 2671. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. J. Turley, M. M. Tynan, and C. J. Plummer Time to manual activation of implantable loop recorders--implications for programming recording period: a 10-year single-centre experience Europace, October 1, 2009; 11(10): 1359 - 1361. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. G. Benditt and J. T. Nguyen Syncope: therapeutic approaches. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 12, 2009; 53(19): 1741 - 1751. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task Force members, M. Brignole, P. Vardas, E. Hoffman, H. Huikuri, A. Moya, R. Ricci, N. Sulke, W. Wieling, EHRA Scientific Documents Committee, et al. Indications for the use of diagnostic implantable and external ECG loop recorders Europace, May 1, 2009; 11(5): 671 - 687. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Brignole, J.-J. Blanc, R. Sutton, and A. Moya CHAPTER 26 Syncope ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, January 1, 2009; 2(1): med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. E. Vardas, H. E. Mavrakis, and W. D. Toff CHAPTER 27 Bradycardia ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, January 1, 2009; 2(1): med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Y. Chen, D. G. Benditt, and W.-K. Shen Management of Syncope in Adults: An Update Mayo Clin. Proc., November 1, 2008; 83(11): 1280 - 1293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. H Pass and L. Liberman The implantable loop recorder in children: searching for indications Heart, July 1, 2008; 94(7): 832 - 833. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Kuhne, B. Schaer, N. Moulay, C. Sticherling, and S. Osswald Holter monitoring for syncope: diagnostic yield in different patient groups and impact on device implantation QJM, December 1, 2007; 100(12): 771 - 777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Maggi, C. Menozzi, M. Brignole, C. Podoleanu, M. Iori, R. Sutton, A. Moya, F. Giada, S. Orazi, and N. Grovale Cardioinhibitory carotid sinus hypersensitivity predicts an asystolic mechanism of spontaneous neurally mediated syncope Europace, August 1, 2007; 9(8): 563 - 567. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Giada, M. Gulizia, M. Francese, F. Croci, L. Santangelo, M. Santomauro, E. Occhetta, C. Menozzi, and A. Raviele Recurrent Unexplained Palpitations (RUP) Study: Comparison of Implantable Loop Recorder Versus Conventional Diagnostic Strategy J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 15, 2007; 49(19): 1951 - 1956. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Sud, G. J. Klein, A. C. Skanes, L. J. Gula, R. Yee, and A. D. Krahn Implications of mechanism of bradycardia on response to pacing in patients with unexplained syncope Europace, May 1, 2007; 9(5): 312 - 318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed in Collaboration With the European Heart, D. P. Zipes, A. J. Camm, M. Borggrefe, A. E. Buxton, B. Chaitman, M. Fromer, G. Gregoratos, G. Klein, A. J. Moss, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 5, 2006; 48(5): e247 - e346. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Brignole, R. Sutton, C. Menozzi, R. Garcia-Civera, A. Moya, W. Wieling, D. Andresen, D. G. Benditt, N. Grovale, T. De Santo, et al. Lack of correlation between the responses to tilt testing and adenosine triphosphate test and the mechanism of spontaneous neurally mediated syncope Eur. Heart J., September 2, 2006; 27(18): 2232 - 2239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Writing Committee Members, D. P. Zipes, A. J. Camm, M. Borggrefe, A. E. Buxton, B. Chaitman, M. Fromer, G. Gregoratos, G. Klein, A. J. Moss, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death) Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society Europace, September 1, 2006; 8(9): 746 - 837. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Brignole, R. Sutton, C. Menozzi, R. Garcia-Civera, A. Moya, W. Wieling, D. Andresen, D. G. Benditt, P. Vardas, and for the International Study on Syncope of Uncertai Early application of an implantable loop recorder allows effective specific therapy in patients with recurrent suspected neurally mediated syncope Eur. Heart J., May 1, 2006; 27(9): 1085 - 1092. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. P Fitzpatrick and P. Cooper Diagnosis and management of patients with blackouts. Heart, April 1, 2006; 92(4): 559 - 568. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. P. Grubb Neurocardiogenic Syncope and Related Disorders of Orthostatic Intolerance Circulation, June 7, 2005; 111(22): 2997 - 3006. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. P. Grubb Neurocardiogenic Syncope N. Engl. J. Med., March 10, 2005; 352(10): 1004 - 1010. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Brignole, C. Menozzi, R. Maggi, A. Solano, P. Donateo, N. Bottoni, G. Lolli, F. Quartieri, F. Croci, D. Oddone, et al. The usage and diagnostic yield of the implantable loop-recorder in detection of the mechanism of syncope and in guiding effective antiarrhythmic therapy in older people Europace, January 1, 2005; 7(3): 273 - 279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. H. Maisel Specialized Syncope Evaluation Circulation, December 14, 2004; 110(24): 3621 - 3623. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Task Force members, M. Brignole, P. Alboni, D. G. Benditt, L. Bergfeldt, J.-J. Blanc, P. E. B. Thomsen, J. G. van Dijk, A. Fitzpatrick, S. Hohnloser, et al. Guidelines on management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope - Update 2004: The task force on Syncope, European Society of Cardiology Eur. Heart J., November 2, 2004; 25(22): 2054 - 2072. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Boersma, L.ís Mont, A. Sionis, E. García, and J. Brugada Value of the implantable loop recorder for the management of patients with unexplained syncope Europace, January 1, 2004; 6(1): 70 - 76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guidelines on Management (diagnosis and treatment) of syncope - update 2004: The Task Force on Syncope, European Society of Cardiology Europace, January 1, 2004; 6(6): 467 - 537. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. D. Krahn, G. J. Klein, R. Yee, J. S. Hoch, and A. C. Skanes Cost implications of testing strategy in patients with syncope: Randomized assessment of syncope trial J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 6, 2003; 42(3): 495 - 501. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. C. Kurer Implantable looprecorders: dollars and sense J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 6, 2003; 42(3): 502 - 504. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Garcia-Civera, R. Ruiz-Granell, S. Morell-Cabedo, R. Sanjuan-Manez, F. Perez-Alcala, E. Plancha, A. Navarro, S. Botella, and A. LLacer Selective use of diagnostic tests inpatients with syncope of unknown cause J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 5, 2003; 41(5): 787 - 790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. G. Benditt and M. Brignole Syncope: is a diagnosis a diagnosis? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 5, 2003; 41(5): 791 - 794. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Bergfeldt DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF CARDIOGENIC SYNCOPE AND SEIZURE DISORDERS Heart, March 1, 2003; 89(3): 353 - 358. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Steering Committee of the ISSUE 2 study International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology 2: the management of patients with suspected or certain neurally mediated syncope after the initial evaluation Rationale and study design Europace, January 1, 2003; 5(3): 317 - 321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. N. Kapoor Current Evaluation and Management of Syncope Circulation, September 24, 2002; 106(13): 1606 - 1609. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Menozzi, M. Brignole, R. Garcia-Civera, A. Moya, G. Botto, L. Tercedor, R. Migliorini, X. Navarro, and on behalf of the International Study on Syncope of Mechanism of Syncope in Patients With Heart Disease and Negative Electrophysiologic Test Circulation, June 11, 2002; 105(23): 2741 - 2745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. M. Landau, A. D. Krahn, G. J. Klein, R. Yee, and A. C. Skanes Randomized Assessment of Syncope Trial: Conventional Diagnostic Testing Versus a Prolonged Monitoring Strategy * Response Circulation, March 12, 2002; 105 (10): e61 - e61. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J. Carey, J. F. Potter, A. D. Krahn, G. J. Klein, R. Yee, and A. C. Skanes Randomized Assessment of Syncope Trial Response Circulation, January 15, 2002; 105 (2): e8 - e8. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Implantable Loop Recorders for Evaluating Patients with Syncope Journal Watch Cardiology, September 14, 2001; 2001(914): 4 - 4. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Olshansky Syncope Evaluation at a Crossroad : For Which Patients? Circulation, July 3, 2001; 104(1): 7 - 8. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||