Key result
An abnormal chronotropic response to both atropine and isoproterenol in asymptomatic sinus bradycardia was associated with a 47% rate of permanent pacemaker implantation at 3 years, compared to 0% in others.
Why the study?
Does consecutive administration of atropine and isoproterenol predict the need for pacemaker implantation in patients with asymptomatic sinus bradycardia?
Cohort (n=100)
Does consecutive administration of atropine and isoproterenol predict the need for pacemaker implantation in patients with asymptomatic sinus bradycardia?
The addition of an isoproterenol test to atropine testing can identify patients with asymptomatic sinus bradycardia who have inadequate chronotropic reserve and are at high risk for requiring a permanent pacemaker.
May support combined testing for risk stratification in asymptomatic sinus bradycardia; leaves open whether it should guide pacemaker decisions.
AIMS: Sinus node function is commonly evaluated by the atropine test. The isoproterenol test is less used. The aim of this study was to evaluate chronotropic reserve in patients with asymptomatic sinus bradycardia using the combined administration of atropine and isoproterenol. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were studied, 18-70 years old, with permanent, asymptomatic, sinus bradycardia and no detectable cardiac disease. The standard administration protocols for atropine and isoproterenol were used and successive heart rate recorded. Patients were stratified into three groups: Group A (control), showing normal response to atropine and isoproterenol; Group B, demonstrating abnormal response to atropine; Group C, with abnormal response to atropine and isoproterenol. No statistically significant difference was observed between Groups A and B (P = 0.11), whereas Group C differed statistically from both Groups A (P < 0.000001) and B (P = 0.000003) to a significant extent. By the end of the 3-year follow-up period, 47% of the Group C patients had undergone permanent pacemaker implantation (DDDR)--Kaplan-Maier survival curves predict only 35% survival without pacing--whereas none did so in Groups A and B. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with deficient chronotropic response to atropine administration, isoproterenol tests could differentiate those with inadequate chronotropic reserves, possibly requiring preventive pacemaker implantations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vavetsi et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Asymptomatic sinus bradycardia (n=100). Abnormal chronotropic response to both atropine and isoproterenol vs. Normal response to both, or abnormal response to atropine only was evaluated on Permanent pacemaker implantation (p=<0.000001). An abnormal chronotropic response to both atropine and isoproterenol in asymptomatic sinus bradycardia was associated with a 47% rate of permanent pacemaker implantation at 3 years, compared to 0% in others.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: