FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2162536719> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2162536719 endingPage "8" @default.
• W2162536719 startingPage "7" @default.
• W2162536719 abstract "HomeCirculationVol. 104, No. 1Syncope Evaluation at a Crossroad Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBSyncope Evaluation at a Crossroad For Which Patients? Brian Olshansky Brian OlshanskyBrian Olshansky From the Division of Cardiology, University of Iowa Hospital, Iowa City. Search for more papers by this author Originally published3 Jul 2001https://doi.org/10.1161/hc2601.093271Circulation. 2001;104:7–8Syncope is one of the most common, alarming, and challenging symptoms with which cardiologists, and most other physicians, grapple.12 It can cause injury and disability, affect lifestyle and quality-of-life, and be an expensive management nightmare.345 Causes range from isolated, benign, situational, and “dysautonomic” events to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.267A thoughtful history and complete physical examination, performed by an astute clinician, will provide diagnostic clues to guide management.289 Unfortunately, the approach often undertaken includes low-yield testing (EEG, CT scan, carotid Dopplers, Holter monitor, and cardiac enzymes),2410 yet even “proper” testing (electrophysiology testing and tilt table testing) can be fruitless. In nearly half of all patients, no diagnosis is secured.2611 Although an implantable loop recorder (ILR) may be useful when all else fails,12 no randomized trial has provided evidence that it is the best initial approach when the history does not provide a diagnosis … until now.Krahn et al13 report the first prospective, randomized trial of the ILR as the initial approach when the cause for syncope could not be gleaned from a circumspect evaluation. They address an important clinical problem and provide new insight into methods to assess syncope. The best way to identify the cause is to monitor the episode. The ILR can do just that: it can provide a diagnosis efficiently, apparently safely, and correctly, but this approach does not yet revolutionize syncope management.Patient selection criteria are crucial. The study impact depends on who is enrolled, but this criterion remains obscure; those included were referred and selected. Consider that the risk, expense, and time required to implant an ILR is unwarranted in patients with a low risk for recurrence and for those whose syncope is benign (eg, situational and neurocardiogenic syncope). The history is key, but neurocardiogenic mechanisms can trigger syncope, even when the cause is obscure.14 A tilt table test may help exclude these low-risk patients before implanting an ILR.The population selected here was at low risk for death, but it is clear that some syncope patients have imminent demise from cardiovascular death. How these patients were excluded is unknown. Consider the following example. A patient with ischemic heart disease, mildly impaired ventricular function, and a bundle branch block who has had coronary revascularization is admitted for recurrent syncope and collapse. Should this patient get an ILR as a first-line approach? It is possible that the ILR will record the cause of the next event for posterity: ventricular fibrillation. What about the patient with dilated cardiomyopathy and abrupt, unexplained syncope? The benefit of the ILR in this population remains unknown.So, if patients with extremely benign causes for syncope should not be considered, yet those with serious, but undiagnosed, causes should also not be included, then who should be considered for an ILR as a first-line diagnostic approach?The evaluation before ILR was not standardized and, therefore, the diagnosis of heart disease may have been missed. Criteria for echocardiography, cardiac catheterization, and treadmill testing are vague. A need to perform electrophysiology testing in patients with preserved left ventricular function and those without ischemic heart disease is not supported.The ILR cannot distinguish bradycardia by mechanism (neurocardiogenic from intrinsic disease). Not all bradycardia in a syncope patient requires a pacing device. Treating bradycardia with a pacemaker in a patient with neurocardiogenic syncope may not necessarily prevent recurrent syncope. One patient in this trial treated with a pacemaker still had recurrent syncope.The extraordinarily low recurrence rate of syncope in a substantial segment of the patients with a negative diagnostic evaluation suggests that (1) these patents may not require an aggressive assessment (perhaps there is a way to exclude such patients); (2) those with a positive evaluation had a treatment that exacerbated or did not treat their syncope; (3) neither approach was capable of arriving at all diagnoses in the time allotted; and/or (4) the diagnosis of syncope is incorrect.A role for the ILR in syncope evaluation exists, but for which patients? One crossroad in syncope evaluation has arrived. Others roads must be crossed. Carefully controlled, clinical trials clearly enunciating the population will define the exact role of ILR. A device that can measure heart rate and hemodynamic response would be more accurate to define the cause and mechanism for syncope. Even better would be a device that measures these parameters along with an electroencephalogram, cerebral blood flow, and hormonal and blood sugar changes. In the future, perhaps, this will be possible.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.FootnotesCorrespondence to Brian Olshansky, MD, Division of Cardiology, University of Iowa Hospital, 200 Hawkins Drive, 4426 B, JCP, Iowa City, IA 52242-1081. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Kapoor WN. Syncope. N Engl J Med.2000; 343:1856–1862.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Olshansky B, Syncope: overview and approach to management. In: Grubb B, Olshansky B, eds. Syncope: Mechanisms and Management. Armonk NY: Futura Publishing Company; 1998:15–72.Google Scholar3 Linzer M, Pontinen M, Gold DT, et al. Impairment of physical and psychosocial function in recurrent syncope. J Clin Epidemiol.1991; 44:1037–1043.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Kapoor WN, Karpf M, Maher Y, et al. Syncope of unknown origin: the need for a more cost-effective approach to its diagnosis evaluation. JAMA.1982; 247:2687–2691.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Zaidi AM, Fitzpatrick AP. Investigation of syncope: increasing the yield and reducing the cost. Eur Heart J.2000; 21:877–880.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 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.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Olshansky B. Is syncope the same thing as sudden death except that you wake up? J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol.1997; 8:1098–1101.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Linzer M, Yang EH, Estes NA 3rd, et al. Diagnosing syncope, part 1: value of history, physical examination, and electrocardiography: Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med.1997; 126:989–996.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Olshansky B. A Pepsi challenge. N Engl J Med.1999; 340:2006.Google Scholar10 Mozes B, Confino-Cohen R, Halkin H. Cost-effectiveness of in-hospital evaluation of patients with syncope. Isr J Med Sci.1988; 24:302–306.MedlineGoogle Scholar11 Linzer M, Yang EH. Estes NA 3rd, et al. Diagnosing syncope, part 2: unexplained syncope: Clinical Efficacy Assessment Project of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med.1997; 127:76–86.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Krahn A, Klein GJ, Yee R. Recurrent unexplained syncope: when all else fails. In: Grubb B, Olshansky B, eds. Syncope: Mechanisms and Management. Armonk, NY: Futura Publishing Company; 1998.Google Scholar13 Krahn AD, Klein GJ, Yee R, et al. Randomized assessment of syncope trial: conventional diagnostic testing versus a prolonged monitoring strategy. Circulation.2001; 104:46–51.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Almquist A, Goldenberg IF, Milstein S, et al. Provocation of bradycardia and hypotension by isoproterenol and upright posture in patients with unexplained syncope. N Engl J Med.1989; 320:346–351.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Da Costa A, Defaye P, Romeyer-Bouchard C, Roche F, Dauphinot V, Deharo J, Jacon P, Lamaison D, Bathélemy J, Isaaz K and Laurent G (2013) Clinical impact of the implantable loop recorder in patients with isolated syncope, bundle branch block and negative workup: A randomized multicentre prospective study, Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases, 10.1016/j.acvd.2012.12.002, 106:3, (146-154), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2013. Bartoletti A (2009) Implantable loop recorders for assessment of syncope: is 'Saint Thomas approach' still the best diagnostic strategy?, Europace, 10.1093/europace/eup266, 11:10, (1262-1264), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2009. Kürer C (2003) Implantable looprecorders, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00660-0, 42:3, (502-504), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2003. Enriquez-Sarano M, Schaff H and Frye R (2003) Mitral Regurgitation, Circulation, 10.1161/01.CIR.0000083831.17708.25, 108:3, (253-256), Online publication date: 22-Jul-2003. Landau W (2018) Randomized Assessment of Syncope Trial: Conventional Diagnostic Testing Versus a Prolonged Monitoring Strategy, Circulation, 105:10, (e61-e61), Online publication date: 12-Mar-2002. VAN DIJK N, BOER K, COLMAN N, BAKKER A, STAM J, VAN GRIEKEN J, WILDE A, LINZER M, REITSMA J and WIELING W (2007) High Diagnostic Yield and Accuracy of History, Physical Examination, and ECG in Patients with Transient Loss of Consciousness in FAST: The Fainting Assessment Study, Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2007.00984.x, 0:0, (071003084053005-???) July 3, 2001Vol 104, Issue 1 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 2001 by American Heart Associationhttps://doi.org/10.1161/hc2601.093271 Originally publishedJuly 3, 2001 KeywordsdiagnosisEditorialssyncopePDF download Advertisement" @default.
• W2162536719 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2162536719 creator A5030434846 @default.
• W2162536719 date "2001-07-03" @default.
• W2162536719 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2162536719 title "Syncope Evaluation at a Crossroad" @default.
• W2162536719 cites W1965720068 @default.
• W2162536719 cites W1967181711 @default.
• W2162536719 cites W1979658088 @default.
• W2162536719 cites W2017288693 @default.
• W2162536719 cites W2119938349 @default.
• W2162536719 cites W2321726344 @default.
• W2162536719 cites W2338589661 @default.
• W2162536719 cites W4229493543 @default.
• W2162536719 cites W4248795520 @default.
• W2162536719 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/hc2601.093271" @default.
• W2162536719 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11435328" @default.
• W2162536719 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W2162536719 type Work @default.
• W2162536719 sameAs 2162536719 @default.
• W2162536719 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W2162536719 countsByYear W21625367192012 @default.
• W2162536719 countsByYear W21625367192013 @default.
• W2162536719 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2162536719 hasAuthorship W2162536719A5030434846 @default.
• W2162536719 hasBestOaLocation W21625367191 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConcept C2780703726 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConceptScore W2162536719C126322002 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConceptScore W2162536719C164705383 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConceptScore W2162536719C177713679 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConceptScore W2162536719C2780703726 @default.
• W2162536719 hasConceptScore W2162536719C71924100 @default.
• W2162536719 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2162536719 hasLocation W21625367191 @default.
• W2162536719 hasLocation W21625367192 @default.
• W2162536719 hasLocation W21625367193 @default.
• W2162536719 hasOpenAccess W2162536719 @default.
• W2162536719 hasPrimaryLocation W21625367191 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W2001379897 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W2042617507 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W2051088427 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W2093693350 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W2312223535 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W2693311789 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W2709985527 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W2981965362 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W3018281624 @default.
• W2162536719 hasRelatedWork W4237608094 @default.
• W2162536719 hasVolume "104" @default.
• W2162536719 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2162536719 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2162536719 magId "2162536719" @default.
• W2162536719 workType "article" @default.