Clinical significance of syncope in the electrophysiologic study versus electrocardiographic monitoring (ESVEM) trial. The ESVEM Investigators

Arrhythmic syncope: From diagnosis to management

Syncope is a concerning symptom that affects a large proportion of patients. It can be related to a heterogeneous group of pathologies ranging from trivial causes to diseases with a high risk of sudden death. However, benign causes are the most frequent, and identifying high-risk patients with potentially severe etiologies is crucial to establish an accurate diagnosis, initiate effective therapy, and alter the prognosis. The term cardiac syncope refers to those episodes where the cause of the cerebral hypoperfusion is directly related to a cardiac disorder, while arrhythmic syncope is cardiac syncope specifically due to rhythm disorders. Indeed, arrhythmias are the most common cause of cardiac syncope. Both bradyarrhythmia and tachyarrhythmia can cause a sudden decrease in cardiac output and produce syncope. In this review, we summarized the main guidelines in the management of patients with syncope of presumed arrhythmic origin. Therefore, we presented a thorough approach to syncope work-up through different tests depending on the clinical characteristics of the patients, risk stratification, and the management of syncope in different scenarios such as structural heart disease and channelopathies.

Syncope: Electrocardiographic and Clinical Correlation

Syncope is a frequent condition, owing to a transient global cerebral hypoperfusion, that may depend on a reduction of vascular total peripheral resistance and/or cardiac output. Cardiac syncope doubled the risk of death from any cause and increased the risk of nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events. Arrhythmias are the most common cardiac causes of syncope. Both bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias may predispose to syncope. The first line evaluation relies on clinical history, physical examination, active standing test, 12-lead echocardiogram. The diagnostic yield of electrophysiological study in detecting the cause of syncope depends highly on the pretest probability.

Syncope: Assessment of risk and an approach to evaluation in the emergency department and urgent care clinic

Syncope is among the most frequent forms of transient loss of consciousness (TLOC), and is characterized by a relatively brief and self-limited loss of consciousness that by definition is triggered by transient cerebral hypoperfusion. Most often, syncope is caused by a temporary drop of systemic arterial pressure below that required to maintain cerebral function, but brief enough not to cause permanent structural brain injury. Currently, approximately one-third of syncope/collapse patients seen in the emergency department (ED) or urgent care clinic are admitted to hospital for evaluation. The primary objective of developing syncope/TLOC risk stratification schemes is to provide guidance regarding the immediate prognostic risk of syncope patients presenting to the ED or clinic; thereafter, based on that risk assessment physicians may be better equipped to determine which patients can be safely evaluated as outpatients, and which require hospital care. In general, the need for hospitalization is determined by several key issues: i) the patient's immediate (usually considered 1 week to 1 month) mortality risk and risk for physical injury (e.g., falls risk), ii) the patient's ability to care for him/herself, and iii) whether certain treatments inherently require in-hospital initiation (e.g., pacemaker implantation). However, at present no single risk assessment protocol appears to be satisfactory for universal application, and development of a consensus recommendation is an essential next step.

Syncope in Patients with Organic Heart Disease

Patients with syncope and organic heart disease remain a small but important subset of those patients who experience transient loss of consciousness. These patients require thoughtful and complete evaluation in an attempt to better understand the mechanism of syncope and its relationship to the underlying disease, and to diagnose and treat both properly. The goal is to reduce the risk of further syncope, to improve long-term outcomes with respect to arrhythmic and total mortality, and to improve patients' quality of life.

Clinical laboratory testing: what is the role of tilt-table testing, active standing test, carotid massage, electrophysiological testing and ATP test in the syncope evaluation?

The first step in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected syncope begins with an "initial evaluation" consisting of careful history taking, physical examination including orthostatic blood pressure measurement and electrocardiogram. However, even in expert centers the diagnostic yield of this "initial evaluation" is only approximately 50%. In the remaining cases in which a satisfactory diagnosis is either unknown or uncertain after initial assessment, additional clinical testing is needed. This article reviews the role of some of the more commonly used additional diagnostic tests, including: tilt-table testing, the active standing test, carotid sinus massage, electrophysiological testing, and the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) test. The role of angiography, exercise testing and imaging is noted briefly. Other clinical laboratory investigations, such as ambulatory ECG monitoring, are examined in other papers in this issue. In brief, clinical laboratory tests, carefully interpreted, may be useful in the evaluation of the basis of suspected syncope. However, these tests should be selected carefully and performed based on the pre-test probability inferred from the initial examination, and the less invasive tests should be used first.

Sudden death risk in syncope: the role of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Syncope is generally benign but when it is due to an underlying cardiovascular condition, the prognosis can be guarded. Patients with syncope may be at risk of dying suddenly from a ventricular arrhythmia especially if the collapse is caused by a poorly-tolerated, self-terminating, ventricular tachycardia (VT). If a similar VT recurs, and persists, it could initiate cardiac arrest, leading to sudden cardiac death. However, distinguishing which patient with syncope may benefit most from implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, which can stop life-threatening and poorly tolerated VT, thereby preventing sudden cardiac death, remains an ongoing challenge. Careful assessment of the patient's underlying cardiovascular conditions, scrupulous attention to historical detail to assess potential causes for syncope, and risk stratification based upon clinical characteristics and short and long-term risks can help. This review focuses on the sudden death risk in patients with syncope and explores the role of the ICD to treat ventricular arrhythmias, prevent symptoms, and prevent death.

[Significance of diagnostic methods in the work-up of syncope]

After the initial evaluation including detailed history, physical examination, electrocardiogram, and orthostatic blood pressure measurements, risk stratification should follow, if the cause of syncope is still unclear in order to define the acuteness and extensiveness of the further diagnostic evaluation. The documentation of arrhythmia during syncope is the gold standard for diagnosis of arrhythmic syncope. The implantable loop recorder should be integrated early in the diagnostic work-up. In patients >40 years with otherwise unexplained syncope, carotid sinus massage is recommended. In suspected reflex-mediated syncope, the tilt test is able to confirm the diagnosis and gives information about the underlying pathomechanisms, while electrophysiological studies have still a proven indication in patients with previous myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function. The adenosine triphophate test has no clinical relevance in the diagnostics of syncope. Echocardiography plays an important role in the risk stratification by diagnosing structural cardiac disease. In patients experiencing syncope associated with exertion, exercise stress testing is indicated. Finally, a coronary angiogram should be performed, if ischemia triggered syncope is suspected. A routinely performed neurological evaluation is not recommended.

Diagnosis, management, and outcomes of patients with syncope and bundle branch block

Aims

Although patients with syncope and bundle branch block (BBB) are at high risk of developing atrio-ventricular block, syncope may be due to other aetiologies. We performed a prospective, observational study of the clinical outcomes of patients with syncope and BBB following a systematic diagnostic approach.

Methods and results

Patients with ≥1 syncope in the last 6 months, with QRS duration ≥120 ms, were prospectively studied following a three-phase diagnostic strategy: Phase I, initial evaluation; Phase II, electrophysiological study (EPS); and Phase III, insertion of an implantable loop recorder (ILR). Overall, 323 patients (left ventricular ejection fraction 56 ± 12%) were studied. The aetiological diagnosis was established in 267 (82.7%) patients (102 at initial evaluation, 113 upon EPS, and 52 upon ILR) with the following aetiologies: bradyarrhythmia (202), carotid sinus syndrome (20), ventricular tachycardia (18), neurally mediated (9), orthostatic hypotension (4), drug-induced (3), secondary to cardiopulmonary disease (2), supraventricular tachycardia (1), bradycardia–tachycardia (1), and non-arrhythmic (7). A pacemaker was implanted in 220 (68.1%), an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in 19 (5.8%), and radiofrequency catheter ablation was performed in 3 patients. Twenty patients (6%) had died at an average follow-up of 19.2 ± 8.2 months.

Conclusion

In patients with syncope, BBB, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 56 ± 12%, a systematic diagnostic approach achieves a high rate of aetiological diagnosis and allows to select specific treatment.

Syncope predicts the outcome of cardiomyopathy patients: analysis of the SCD-HeFT study

OBJECTIVES

The outcome of congestive heart failure (CHF) patients with syncope is understood incompletely.

BACKGROUND

We analyzed data from patients enrolled in the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death Heart Failure Trial) to determine whether syncope predicted outcomes in patients with CHF.

METHODS

We compared outcomes (and associated clinical characteristics) in patients with and without syncope enrolled in SCD-HeFT.

RESULTS

In SCD-HeFT, 162 (6%) patients had syncope before randomization, 356 (14%) had syncope after randomization (similar incidence in each randomized arm), and 46 (2%) had syncope before and after randomization. A QRS duration >or=120 ms and absence of beta-blocker use predicted syncope during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30 and 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.61, p = 0.014 and HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.56, p = 0.048, respectively). Syncope recurrence did not differ by randomization arm. However, in the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) arm, syncope, before and after randomization, was associated with appropriate ICD discharges (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.80, p = 0.019 and HR 2.91, 95% CI 1.89 to 4.47, p = 0.001, respectively). Post-randomization syncope predicted total and cardiovascular death (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.76, p = 0.002 and HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.02, p = 0.001, respectively). The elevated relative risk of mortality for syncope versus non-syncope patients did not vary significantly across treatment arms (ICD, HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.27; amiodarone, HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.93; and placebo, HR 1.39, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.02, test for difference p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

For CHF patients with ICDs, syncope was associated with appropriate ICD activations. Syncope was associated with increased mortality risk in SCD-HeFT regardless of treatment arm (placebo, amiodarone, or ICD).

Cardiovascular assessment of falls in older people

Falls in older people can be caused by underlying cardiovascular disorders, either because of balance instability in persons with background gait and balance disorders, or because of amnesia for loss of consciousness during unwitnessed syncope. Pertinent investigations include a detailed history, 12-lead electrocardiography, lying and standing blood pressure, carotid sinus massage (CSM), head-up tilt, cardiac electrophysiological tests, and ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate monitoring, which includes external and internal cardiac monitoring. The presence of structural heart disease predicts an underlying cardiac cause. Conversely, the absence of either indicates that neurally mediated etiology is likely. CSM and tilt-table testing should be considered in patients with unexplained and recurrent falls. Holter monitoring over 24 hours has a low diagnostic yield. Early use of an implantable loop recorder may be more cost-effective. A dedicated investigation unit increases the likelihood of achieving positive diagnoses and significantly reduces hospital stay and health expenditure.

Increased sensitivity of electrophysiological study by isoproterenol infusion in unexplained syncope

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the interests of electrophysiologic study (EPS) after infusion of isoproterenol in patients with syncope and negative EPS in control state.

METHODS

1350 patients were consecutively admitted for syncope and EPS. Patients were included if they had no history of tachycardia, a normal Holter monitoring, a negative EPS in control state. EPS was repeated after infusion of 2-4 mug/kg of isoproterenol.

RESULTS

256 patients, 35 with exercise-related syncope and 105 with heart disease (HD), were recruited. After isoproterenol, an arrhythmia was identified as the sign associated with syncope in 102 patients (40%): SVT in 32 patients, VT in 36 patients, infrahisian 2nd or 3rd degree AV block in three patients and vasovagal reaction in 31 patients. Arrhythmias were more frequent in patients with HD (50/105) than in those without HD (52/151) (p<0.05); SVT tended to be more frequent in patients without HD (n=23) than in those with HD (n=9) (p<0.1); VT was more frequent in patients with HD (n=26) than in those without HD (n=10) (p<0.001). There was no relationship between a positive isoproterenol testing and occurrence of syncope at exercise (19/35 vs 81/221) (p<0.1).

CONCLUSION

isoproterenol infusion increased the sensitivity of EPS in patients with syncope, related or not to exercise, and with negative study in control state, but principally in those with HD. However, SVT was diagnosed in patients without HD and EPS associated with isoproterenol infusion remained an important and rapid tool to establish this diagnosis.

Differences in mechanisms and outcomes of syncope in patients with coronary disease or idiopathic left ventricular dysfunction as assessed by electrophysiologic testing

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the causes of syncope and the significance and differences in left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, coronary disease, and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification of and indications for an automated defibrillator could differ according to the cause of LV dysfunction.

METHODS

Electrophysiologic study, including atrial and ventricular programmed stimulation, was performed in 119 patients with coronary disease (group I) and 61 patients with DCM (group II) with an left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% and syncope. Patients were followed from one to six years (mean 4 +/- 2 years).

RESULTS

Sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) was induced in 44 group I patients (37%) and 13 group II patients (21%); ventricular flutter (>270 beats/min) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) was induced in 24 group I patients (19%) and 9 group II patients (15%); and various other arrhythmias were identified. Syncope remained unexplained in 34 group I patients (30%) and 16 group II patients (27%). Prognosis depended on the heart disease: VT or VF induction was a predictive factor of mortality in coronary disease and identified a group with high cardiac mortality (46%), compared with patients with a negative study, who had a lower mortality (6%; p < 0.001) than in other studies. Cardiac mortality was only correlated with LVEF in DCM.

CONCLUSIONS

Various causes could explain syncope in 70% of patients with coronary disease and DCM, but differences were noted: VT was frequent in coronary disease with a bad prognosis, and ischemia could explain syncope; in DCM, different causes such as atrial tachycardia could be responsible for syncope, but the prognosis only depended on LVEF.

Long-Term Outcome of Patients Who Received Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Stable Ventricular Tachycardia

INTRODUCTION

Evidence is inconclusive concerning the role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) to treat patients with hemodynamically stable ventricular tachycardia (VT). The goal of this study was to estimate future risk of unstable ventricular arrhythmias in patients who received ICDs for stable VT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reviewed complete ICD follow-up data from 82 patients (age 66.1 +/- 11.3 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 32.3%+/- 11.2%; mean +/- SD) who received ICDs for stable VT. During the follow-up period of 23.6 +/- 21.5 months (mean +/- SD), 15 patients (18%) died, and 10 (12%) developed unstable ventricular arrhythmia, 8 of whom had the unstable arrhythmia as the first arrhythmia after ICD placement. Estimated 2- and 4-year survival in the whole group was 80% and 74%, respectively. Estimated 2- and 4-year probability of any VT and unstable VT was 67% and 77% and 11% and 25%, respectively. There were no differences in age, ejection fraction, sex, underlying heart disease, cycle length, symptoms, baseline electrophysiologic study results, or QRS characteristics of qualifying VT between patients who developed unstable ventricular arrhythmia and patients who did not. Twenty-nine patients (35%) had at least one inappropriate shock, and 11 (13%) underwent further surgery for ICD-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Patients who present with hemodynamically stable VT are at risk for subsequent unstable VT. ICD treatment offers potential salvage of patients with stable VT who subsequently develop unstable VT/ventricular fibrillation, although complications and inappropriate shocks are considerable. No predictors could be found for high and low risk for unstable arrhythmias. These findings support ICD treatment for stable VT survivors.

Incidence and prognosis of syncope

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the epidemiology and prognosis of syncope in the general population.

METHODS

We evaluated the incidence, specific causes, and prognosis of syncope among women and men participating in the Framingham Heart Study from 1971 to 1998.

RESULTS

Of 7814 study participants followed for an average of 17 years, 822 reported syncope. The incidence of a first report of syncope was 6.2 per 1000 person-years. The most frequently identified causes were vasovagal (21.2 percent), cardiac (9.5 percent), and orthostatic (9.4 percent); for 36.6 percent the cause was unknown. The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios among participants with syncope from any cause, as compared with those who did not have syncope, were 1.31 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.14 to 1.51) for death from any cause, 1.27 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.64) for myocardial infarction or death from coronary heart disease, and 1.06 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.45) for fatal or nonfatal stroke. The corresponding hazard ratios among participants with cardiac syncope were 2.01 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.48 to 2.73), 2.66 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.69 to 4.19), and 2.01 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.06 to 3.80). Participants with syncope of unknown cause and those with neurologic syncope had increased risks of death from any cause, with multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios of 1.32 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.09 to 1.60) and 1.54 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 2.12), respectively. There was no increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity or mortality associated with vasovagal (including orthostatic and medication-related) syncope.

CONCLUSIONS

Persons with cardiac syncope are at increased risk for death from any cause and cardiovascular events, and persons with syncope of unknown cause are at increased risk for death from any cause. Vasovagal syncope appears to have a benign prognosis.

Syncope: investigation and treatment

Syncope is a common condition that can be both disabling and expensive to treat. Although investigative modalities are sometimes required, a diagnosis can often be made with a good history and physical exam. Recent reports have identified specific historic features that are more suggestive of cardiac syncope as compared with vasovagal syncope and seizures. Advances in ambulatory electrocardiography (in particular the implantable loop recorder) have proven invaluable in both difficult-to-diagnose syncope, and in advancing our knowledge of its mechanisms. When clear dysrhythmias are manifest, appropriate therapies are self-evident. However, recurrent vasovagal syncope continues to be a condition that can be difficult to treat. Fortunately, there are well-conducted trials of both pharmacologic therapies (b-blockers, alpha agonists, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and nonpharmacologic treatments (orthostatic physical training and dual-chamber pacemakers) that should provide more guidance in the near future.

Atrioventricular block and problems with atrioventricular conduction

This chapter has summarized briefly the current state of our knowledge on the incidence, etiology, presentation, investigation, and management of patients with AV block. The scope of the material covered has been widened intentionally to include a plethora of AV-conduction abnormalities because of the increases in the understanding of their clinical importance and contribution to left ventricular dysfunction. Under this heading, the critical importance of heart rate, maintenance of AV synchrony, and the sequence of ventricular activation and relaxation have been introduced and summarized briefly. The authors make a strong plea that, in the future, the reader consider AV-conduction abnormalities to be the parent topic, with the more-traditional, narrower subject of AV block forming a subunit thereof.

Diagnostic evaluation and management of patients with syncope

This article focuses on the evaluation of patients with syncope, a symptom not a disease. Syncope is a transient loss of consciousness associated with loss of postural tone with spontaneous recovery. The authors discuss the utility of an indications for different diagnostic tests, the indications for hospital admission, and the management of patients with certain known causes of syncope, including vasovagal and arrhythmic.