Clinical factors such as younger age, recent syncopal episode, physical injury during syncope, and occurrence of junctional rhythm can help predict a positive head-up tilt test in patients with suspected neurocardiogenic syncope.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
These predictors may aid HUT selection in suspected syncope; observational data leave open prospective validation and management impact.
Neurocardiogenic syncope is the most common cause of syncope in patients who present in outpatient clinics. Head-up tilt test (HUT) has been widely used to diagnose neurocardiogenic syncope. However, the HUT does not always produce a positive response in patients with suspected neurocardiogenic syncope. The aim of the present study was to assess the clinical history and characteristics of patients with suspected neurocardiogenic syncope or presyncope who undertook HUT, and to identify prognostic factors of a positive HUT response. During the first phase of HUT, patients were tilted to a 70-degree angle for 30 minutes. If the first phase produced a negative response, the second phase was subsequently performed involving intravenous isoproterenol administration. Of 711 patients, 423 (59.5%) patients showed a positive HUT response. In contrast to previous studies, this study showed that the vasodepressive type (76.6%) was the most common pattern of positive response, and that the rate of positive response during the first phase was low (7.1%). By multivariate analysis, the occurrence of junctional rhythm was found to be a predictor of an impending positive response in HUT (P < 0.001). The shorter time interval between the last episode and HUT was also a predictor of positive response (P = 0.0015). Younger age (P = 0.0003) and a history of physical injury during a syncopal episode (P = 0.019) were found to be associated with a positive response in the first phase of HUT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oh et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: