Mechanisms of syncope in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients who receive device therapies

A significant proportion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients ultimately receive device therapies. Determinants and mechanisms of syncopal events in these patients are not established. To address this issue, we reviewed prospectively collected data on 114 ICD recipients who received device therapies. There were 99 men and 15 women with a mean age of 63+/-10 years. Ejection fraction was 29+/-13%. At initial presentation, 74 patients (65%) had syncope during arrhythmia. Of 114 patients, 18 patients (16%) subsequently experienced syncope during device therapies over a period of 35+/-24 months of follow-up. Arrhythmias during syncopal events documented by telemetry, event recorders, RR intervals, or ICD stored electrograms were obtainable in 13 patients, and included sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 10 patients, ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 2 patients, and atrial fibrillation in 1 patient. The explanations for arrhythmia-related syncope included ICD proarrhythmia in 8 patients (62%), rapid monomorphic VT in 3 (23%), and VF in 2 patients (15%). Patients with syncope could not be differentiated from those without syncope by demographic, clinical, or electrophysiologic variables. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients with or without syncope (39% vs 25%, p = 0.25). Syncope is not uncommon in ICD recipients who receive device therapies. When it occurs, syncope is often due to ICD proarrhythmia; hence, it is potentially preventable by meticulous device programming.

Prognostic role of troponin T versus troponin I in unstable angina pectoris for cardiac events with meta-analysis comparing published studies

Controversy exists as to the clinical roles and relative specificities of cardiac troponin T or I in patients with unstable angina pectoris (UAP). We measured troponin T and I levels on admission in 123 patients with UAP. Of the 107 patients with normal creatine kinase during the first 24 hours, troponin T and I were elevated in 14 and 13 patients, respectively. At 30 days, 5 of 14 patients (36%) with elevated troponin T and 3 of 93 patients (3.2%) with normal troponin T had acute myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR], 16.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4 to 81.5; p <0.001). Of 13 patients with elevated troponin I, 5 patients (39%) and 3 of 94 patients (3.2%) with normal troponin I had acute myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 21.7; 95% CI 4.3 to 110; p <0.001). No deaths occurred within 30 days. Both markers demonstrated equivalent sensitivity (63%) and specificities (troponin T: 91%; troponin I: 92%) for myocardial infarction. Meta-analysis of 12 published troponin T and 9 troponin I studies in patients with UAP produced risk ratios of 4.2 (95% CI 2.7 to 6.4, p <0.001) for troponin I compared with 2.7 (95% CI 2.1 to 3.4, p <0.001) for troponin T. Comparison of the sensitivities and specificities of both markers using summary receiver operating characteristic curves showed no significant difference in their abilities to predict acute myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Troponin T and I show similar prognostic significance for acute myocardial infarction or death in the same patients with UAP. The 2 markers are equally sensitive and specific, as confirmed by meta-analysis, and this supports a role in risk stratification.

Clinically significant drug interactions with the oral anticoagulants

Oral anticoagulants were introduced in the late 1940s and remain widely used today. Indications include prevention of thrombosis associated with atrial fibrillation, structural cardiac diseases and following prosthetic valvular replacement. They have been used for both treatment and prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis and in efforts to decrease the frequency and rate of second myocardial infarction. These compounds include the coumarin derivatives [dicoumarol (bishydroxycoumarin), phenprocoumon, nicoumalone (acenocoumarol)] and the indanedione derivatives (diphenadione, phenindione, anisindione) which, because of adverse reactions, are largely unavailable. The oral anticoagulants, and warfarin in particular, are highly interactive with other drugs. Mechanisms of those interactions include both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic mechanisms and may result in either hyper- or hypoprothrombinaemia. Because their principal adverse reaction is haemorrhage, and interactions are widespread across many therapeutic specialties, it becomes imperative for the practising physician to be aware of the possibility of interaction whenever these agents are coadministered with other drugs.

Dipyridamole-thallium stress testing: a local community hospital experience

Clinical data on the first 100 patients who underwent dipyridamole-thallium stress testing in our hospital were reviewed in order to re-evaluate safety guidelines and diagnostic utility in patients with coronary artery disease. Forty patients developed symptoms, including three major ones. One patient had significant bronchospasm, and two others developed significant hypotension with near syncope. The rest had nonspecific chest, shoulder, arm or throat pain, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, and paresthesia. Most symptoms occurred within the first 10 minutes of dipyridamole infusion. Twenty-eight patients required treatment with intravenous (IV) aminophylline. Of the remaining 60 patients, 30 became hypotensive but remained asymptomatic. Fourteen of 20 patients who underwent coronary angiography had coronary disease. Thirteen were correctly identified by thallium imaging, and only one was identified by electrocardiogram (EKG). Six patients' angiographies showed no evidence of coronary disease. Five of these patients developed perfusion abnormalities during thallium scintigraphy. These results suggest that dipyridamole is a relatively safe drug for pharmacologic stress testing even though the incidence of side effects is relatively high. The high incidence of thallium perfusion abnormalities in patients without coronary disease probably reflects bias in patient selection for coronary angiography, resulting in a relatively small sample of catheterized patients. However, this requires further investigation.