植入型心电事件记录仪在不明原因晕厥中的应用价值:单中心经验

目的探讨植入型心电事件记录仪(ILR)在不明原因晕厥患者中的应用价值,并筛选可能的心律失常源性晕厥预测因素。方法连续入选2013年1月至2018年10月在大连医科大学附属第一医院诊断为不明原因晕厥,且植入ILR的患者37例,年龄(59±19)岁,男24例。植入后进行常规随访,每3~6个月进行1次随访,主要随访内容:症状、程控事件、是否发生晕厥。如患者发生晕厥,通知回院就诊,接受程控和心电学检查,分析晕厥病因及心律失常类型和相关危险因素。结果共22例(59.46%,22/37)患者记录到晕厥事件,其中9例为窦性心动过缓或窦性停搏,6例为三度或高度房室传导阻滞,1例为室性心动过速,2例为室上性心动过速,4例为心房颤动(房颤)伴RR长间歇(>2 s),在植入后(187.73±177.12)d发生晕厥事件。1例患者记录到房颤伴RR长间歇,但未发生晕厥。16例患者植入永久起搏器,1例患者植入心律转复除颤器,2例患者行导管消融治疗。对性别、年龄、合并基础疾病、植入前晕厥次数、心电信息等进行分析发现,动态心电图中存在RR长间歇(>2 s)是预测晕厥发作的影响因素。结论植入ILR可使不明原因晕厥患者获得明确诊断并接受相应治疗,ILR是明确晕厥病因的有效手段之一。动态心电图中存在RR长间歇(>2 s)是心律失常原因晕厥的重要预测因素。     

埋藏式心律失常追踪器的临床应用

多数不明原因晕厥与严重心律失常有关,对这类晕厥,诊断精度和效率最高的方法是为患者安装埋藏式心律失常追踪器(ILR)。不论患者有无症状,新一代ILR可在长达3年的监测期内,借助手动/自动存储模式选择性捕捉有意义事件前/后的心电信息,明确心律失常与患者晕厥有或没有相关性,进而大大改进晕厥患者的治疗效果和转归。     

动态心电图在不明原因晕厥诊断中的价值

目的探讨动态心电图(Holter)在不明原因晕厥诊断中的应用价值。方法对146例不明原因的晕厥患者进行24小时Holter检查。全部患者经病史、体检、常规心电图和体位性低血压试验等均未发现晕厥的直接原因。结果146例患者经Holter检查,55例(37.67%)出现心律失常,25例(17.12%)出现晕厥发作,22例(15.06%)晕厥发作与心律失常有关。尤其与心电图RR间期有一定的相关性。25例晕厥患者中,RR间期≥3.0秒者共57次,其中31次发生晕厥;而RR间期<3.0秒者256次,无1例发生晕厥(P<0.01)。结论一些不明原因晕厥的发作与心律失常有关。Holter检查对不明原因晕厥的病因诊断仍然是一种有价值的工具。     

不明原因性晕厥患者动态心电图的特征分析

目的探究和分析不明原因性晕厥患者动态心电图特征。方法选择我院自2017年1月至2018年1月收治的20例不明原因性晕厥患者作为研究对象,所有患者均行24小时动态心电监测,并根据患者监测期间是否出现晕厥发作将其分成晕厥组(8例)和无晕厥组(12例),对比两组患者动态心电图特征。结果监测期间,共发现13例患者存在心律失常,检出率为65.0%,其中包含6例窦性心动过缓伴窦性停博、4例窦房传导阻滞、2例三度房室传导阻滞、1例阵发性心房颤动;晕厥组患者各种缓慢性或快速性心律失常发生率、R-R间期均明显高于无晕厥组患者,两组对比差异显著,具有统计学意义(P0.05),且R-R间期3.0s者,无1例发生晕厥。结论心律失常是引发不明原因性晕厥再次发作的重要危险因素,采用动态心电图监测不仅能明确不明原因性晕厥患者的病因,还能检测其R-R间期长度,因此,其检出结果能作为指导患者临床治疗的有效依据。     

植入式心电记录器应用的新进展

利用植入式心电记录器(Implantable loop recorder,ILR)可在长达数年的时间内连续记录心电信号.对于反复发作而原因不明的晕厥患者,安装ILR相对于常规检查手段可获得更高的确诊率.本文介绍了ILR原理及其临床应用的优越性,对ILR在晕厥诊断、心肌梗死后心律失常记录方面的应用进展做了综合评述.     

动态心电图对不明原因晕厥的诊断意义

目的 探讨动态心电图(Holter)对不明原因晕厥的诊断意义.方法 对320例不明原因的晕厥患者进行24小时动态心电图检查.结果 320例患者经动态心电图检查,116例(36.25%)出现严重心律失常,60例(18.75%)出现晕厥发作,46例(14.37%)晕厥发作与心律失常有关,尤其与R-R间期的长短有一定的相关性...     

植入型心电记录器成功发现晕厥病因一例

为不明原因晕厥患者安装植入型心电记录器（insertable loop recorder,ILR）在国内已有少量报道,但能明确记录到与晕厥相关的心律失常发生,继而确定病因者仍为数不多。本文报道1例植入ILR后18个月记录到窦性停搏的病例。     

不同亚型血管迷走性晕厥患者倾斜试验中的自主神经变化及血流动力学反应

观察不同亚型血管迷走性晕厥 (VVS)患者倾斜试验中的自主神经变化及血流动力学反应。 5 5例不明原因晕厥患者及 2 0例健康人行直立倾斜试验。基础试验阴性者 ,行硝酸甘油激发试验。倾斜试验过程中连续监测心电图、血压和心率 ,并进行心率变异性分析。结果 :病例组 5 5人中 32人出现阳性反应。心脏抑制型患者晕厥前心率为 10 8± 2 0 .4 1次 /分 ,晕厥时急剧下降至 4 6 .5± 5 .74次 /分 ,下降比率为 5 6 .32 %± 6 .4 8%。血管抑制型患者晕厥时与晕厥前相比 ,收缩压、舒张压和平均动脉压的下降比率分别为 33.31%± 10 .16 %、31.0 5 %± 10 .96 %和 30 .81%± 9.11%。混合型患者晕厥前心率为 119± 7.38次 /分 ,晕厥时下降至 4 8.4 0± 11.89次 /分 ,下降比率为 5 9.12 %± 10 .4 1%,收缩压、舒张压和平均动脉压的下降比率分别为 31.13%± 13.2 7%、33.0 8%± 14 .33%和 31.5 6 %± 12 .77%。各型VVS患者晕厥前功率谱均显示低频段功率的标化值 (LFnorm)及低频与高频功率的比值 (LF/HF)显著增加 ,高频段功率的标化值 (HFnorm)显著下降 ;而晕厥时LFnorm及LF/HF显著下降 ,HFnorm显著增加。结论 :自主神经功能改变是各型VVS患者发生晕厥的共同机制 ,但可产生不同的血流动力学反应。     

血管迷走性晕厥患者24h动态血压变化的分析

本文对12例经倾斜试验(TTT)阳性,诊断为血管迷走性晕厥(VS)患者的24h动态血压监测资料,进行分析,并与20例TTT阴性者(对照组)作比较。 1 资料与方法 收集1998年2月～2000年2月,因晕厥原因不明而住院者32例,男18例,女14例,平均年龄19～68(34.2±10.6)岁,均有2次以上的晕厥史,晕厥时伴有短暂性的意识丧失,住院后经体检以及心电图、心脏超声心动图、动态心电图等检查排除了器质性心脏病和明确病因的晕厥。32例均行倾斜试验,试验前3d停用一切可能影响自主神经功能的药物,并按其结果进行血管迷走性晕厥诊     

植入心电记录器的护理配合

通常认为诊断复发性晕厥的“金标准”是发作当时的心电图[1] 。但是由于晕厥的偶发性和不可预测性等特点 ,往往很难获得发作当时的心电图。植入式心电记录器 (Insertablelooprecorder ,ILR)埋植于皮下 ,进行 14～ 18个月的心电监测 ,可获得晕厥发作时心律变化的确切资料。本文简述了如何做到随时获得稳定、清晰的心电记录波形 ,明确诊断晕厥病因的护理配合技术 ,并附一例ILR植入患者的随访结果。1　病例资料患者 ,男性 ,74岁 ,反复发作性晕厥 3年。先后多次门诊检查及 3次住院治疗 ,但是诊断仍然不明确。 2 0 0 2年 3月 2 9日再次入院。…     

High incidence of tachyarrhythmias detected by an implantable loop recorder in patients with unexplained syncope

BACKGROUND: Syncope is a complex clinical syndrome that may be challenging with respect to a definite diagnosis. The implantable loop recorder (ILR) is a useful tool to define but also to exclude an arrhythmic aetiology. AIM: To investigate the causes of recurrent syncope or near-syncope with respect to underlying arrhythmias in non-selected consecutive patients monitored with an ILR. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including 55 patients (34 men, 21 women; age 60+/-19 years) with unexplained syncope who received an ILR for prolonged monitoring at our institution between April 1998 and October 2006. RESULTS: Forty (73%) patients had a recurrence of syncope or near-syncope. Structural heart disease was present in 18 (33%) patients, 4 of them having an ejection fraction <35%. An arrhythmia was detected as the cause of syncope in 25 (46%) patients. The ILR was successful in establishing a symptom-rhythm correlation in 63%. The mean follow-up period from implantation to occurrence of the detected arrhythmias was 9+/-8 months. Bradyarrhythmias were recorded in 12 (22%) patients, whereas tachyarrhythmias were found in 13 (24%) patients. Narrow QRS tachycardia was the underlying arrhythmia in 6 patients and wide QRS tachycardia in 7 patients. A pacemaker was implanted in all 12 patients with bradyarrhythmias. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy was indicated in 6 patients with adjunctive catheter ablation in 3 of them. Four patients presenting with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia were treated with radiofrequency catheter ablation. CONCLUSION: The ILR helped efficaciously to determine the correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment of recurrent syncope. A considerably high proportion of tachyarrhythmias was detected in this non-selected consecutive population. The majority of patients with tachyarrhythmic syncope required defibrillator implantation and/or radiofrequency ablation.     

Arrhythmia Detection by Patient and Auto-Activation in Implantable Loop Recorders

AIMS: The Reveal Plus implantable loop recorder offers additional automatic detection of arrhythmias that may not be symptomatic. We evaluated the clinical utility of this function compared with standard patient activation. METHODS: Over an 18 month period, 50 consecutive patients (age 54 +/- 20 years; 24 male) with unexplained dizziness, palpitations and/or syncope had ILR activations which were downloaded for analysis. Patient and auto-activation were analysed with respect to arrhythmia detection and the impact on management of patients was examined. RESULTS: Patient symptoms were syncope in 72% and non-syncope (dizziness and/or palpitations) in 28%. There were 181 patient activation events with 16% showing symptomatic arrhythmia leading to a positive diagnosis in 8 patients. Of 682 auto-activations, detection was appropriate in 17% and inappropriate in 83% (undersensing in 76% and oversensing in 24%). In 8 patients clinically relevant arrhythmia was detected by patient activation alone. In 4 of these patients, further arrhythmia was detected by auto-activation. No patient had important arrhythmia detected only by auto-activation. CONCLUSION: Automatic detection of asymptomatic arrhythmia did not appear to improve the diagnostic utility of the ILR in our series. The large number of stored inappropriate auto-activation events limits the ability of this function to detect clinically relevant arrhythmia. Symptom-rhythm correlation using the patient activation function remains clinically useful in patients with unexplained syncope or palpitation.     

Comparison of automatic and patient-activated arrhythmia recordings by implantable loop recorders in the evaluation of syncope

The implantable loop recorder (ILR) has become an important tool for evaluating patients with recurrent syncope. Second generation ILRs have the ability to record events either automatically (auto activated) or by manual activation (patient activated). In an attempt to evaluate the relative utility of the auto-activation feature, this study stratified ILR events based on a grading system designed to classify detected arrhythmias in terms of the likelihood that they provide a diagnostic basis for syncope. Data from 50 patients (27 men, mean age 64 +/- 22 years) who underwent ILR implantation for investigation of recurrent syncope were assessed. The arrhythmia syncope grading system used 5 levels, ranging from grade 0 (rhythm recorded during syncope) to grade IV (rhythm unlikely to provide a diagnostic basis for syncope). Thirty-six patients (72%) demonstrated > or =1 auto-activated or patient-activated recording during a follow-up of 14.3 +/- 7.9 months. Of the total of 529 recordings, 223 (194 after auto activation [86.9%]) from 30 patients showed a rhythm abnormality. Auto activation was more effective for documenting arrhythmias that were recorded during syncope or those with highest probability of providing a syncope diagnosis (grade 0 or I arrhythmias: auto activated, 19 patients, patient activated, 3 patients). Times from ILR implantation to first grade 0 and grade I arrhythmias were 13.4 and 7.8 months, respectively. The ILR auto-activation feature proved effective in providing a high probability basis for syncope (196 arrhythmia recordings [87.1%] in 27 patients) and enhanced the diagnostic effectiveness of the device compared with patient activation alone (29 arrhythmia recordings [12.9%] in 6 patients).     

The usage and diagnostic yield of the implantable loop-recorder in detection of the mechanism of syncope and in guiding effective antiarrhythmic therapy in older people.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the usage and diagnostic yield of the implantable loop-recorder (ILR) in detection of the mechanism of syncope and in guiding therapy in patients aged >/=65 years and comparing them with those <65 years. DESIGN: This was a two-hospital, observational, prospective study in consecutive patients with unexplained syncope who underwent an ILR implantation. Between November 1997 and December 2002, a total of 2052 patients with syncope were evaluated (local population of 590,000 inhabitants). The diagnosis remained unexplained in 371 (18%). Of these, 103 patients (5% of the total, 28% of those with unexplained syncope) received an ILR. RESULTS: There were 70 (76%) patients aged >/=65 years and 25 (24%) <65 years. ILR implantation was 110 and 9 per million inhabitants per year, respectively. During a mean follow-up of 14+/-10 months, syncope was recorded in 52 patients. Compared with younger patients those older had a 2.7 higher syncope recurrence rate (56% vs 32%, P=0.03); arrhythmias were 3.1 times more likely to be responsible for syncope (44% vs 20%, P=0.03). More patients >/=65 years finally received ILR-guided therapy (42% vs 20%, P=0.04). Among the 29 patients (25 of those >/=65 years) who received specific antiarrhythmic therapy, only one (3%), had recurrence of syncope during the subsequent follow-up of 40+/-18 months. CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred for investigation of unexplained syncope, the older subjects are more likely to have an indication for ILR implantation than those younger, ILR has a higher diagnostic value, an arrhythmia is more likely to be detected and successfully treated.     

Utility of implantable loop recorder (Reveal Plus) in the diagnosis of unexplained syncope.

AIMS: In about 30% of patients with syncope, the responsible mechanisms remain unrecognised. Nevertheless, the possibility of an arrhythmic aetiology remains, however, difficult to rule out. METHODS: We therefore monitored with an implantable loop recorder (ILR, Reveal Plus, Medtronic) 34 subjects (60+/-15 years) with at least two unexplained syncopal episodes and negative neurological and cardiovascular work-up. RESULTS: During a follow-up of 7+/-4 months, syncope occurred in 11 subjects. In nine of them the mechanisms responsible for these events were identified by ILR monitoring: marked bradycardia or asystole (n=6), atrial fibrillation with wide QRS tachycardia (n=1) and sinus rhythm with fine artifacts likely to be due to muscle contractions (n=2). Pre-syncope occurred in seven patients: advanced atrioventricular block (n=3), sinus tachycardia (n=1), and wide QRS tachycardia (n=1) were documented. Thus, when considering all 18 patients with recurrences, a diagnosis was achieved in 53% of subjects. Recognition of the rhythm disorder in seven patients with syncope and four patients with pre-syncope guided patient management. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that ILR monitoring facilitates the identification of mechanisms responsible for recurrences and therapeutic management in subjects with syncope or pre-syncope and negative traditional neurological and cardiovascular work-up.     

Predictive value of presyncope in patients monitored for assessment of syncope

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of recording the cardiac rhythm during presyncope in patients undergoing monitoring for undiagnosed syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-five patients (age, 59 +/- 18 years; 44 men, 41 women) with recurrent unexplained syncope underwent prolonged monitoring with an implantable loop recorder. Patients were examined for syncope, which was either recurrent or associated with at least 2 presyncopal episodes. Patients had a mean of 5.1 +/- 5.5 syncopal episodes in the previous 12 months, and 70% of patients had symptoms for >2 years. Sixty-two (73%) patients had recurrent symptoms during a 12-month follow-up period. Of 150 recurrent events captured by the implantable loop recorder, there were 38 (25%) episodes of syncope and 112 (75%) episodes of presyncope. Syncope alone recurred in 12 patients, presyncope in 25, and both in 16. An arrhythmia was present in 64% of syncopal events (bradycardia in 16, tachycardia in 2) versus 25% for presyncopal events (bradycardia in 7, tachycardia in 3, P =.001). An arrhythmia was detected in 9 (56%) of the 16 patients with both syncope and presyncope, which was present in all recorded episodes of syncope compared with 6 of 9 presyncopal episodes. Patient-related failure to freeze the device after symptoms occurred in 21 (36%) of 59 syncopal events compared with 15 (12%) of 127 presyncopal events (P =.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Syncope is more likely to be associated with an arrhythmia than is presyncope in patients undergoing extended monitoring. Presyncope is a nonspecific end point that is frequently associated with sinus rhythm. Patients undergoing extended monitoring for syncope should continue to be monitored after an episode of presyncope unless an arrhythmia is detected.     

Incidence, diagnostic yield and safety of the implantable loop-recorder to detect the mechanism of syncope in patients with and without structural heart disease.

AIM: To evaluate the incidence, diagnostic yield and safety of implantable loop recorders (ILRs) in patients with or without structural heart disease (SHD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Two-hospitals, observational, prospective study in consecutive patients with unexplained syncope who underwent an ILR implantation. Between November 1997 and December 2002, a total of 2052 patients with syncope were evaluated (referral population of 590000 inhabitants). The diagnosis remained unexplained in 371 (18%). Of these, 103 patients (5% of total, 28% of unexplained syncope) received an ILR. SHD was present in 38 (37%), and absent in 65 (63%). During a median follow-up of 13 months, syncope was recorded in 52 patients. While patients with and without SHD had similar incidence of syncope recurrence, its mechanism was different. Patients with SHD more frequently had paroxysmal AV block and tachyarrhythmias and patients without SHD more frequently had sinus bradycardia/sinus arrest or no arrhythmia. More patients with SHD finally received an ILR-guided therapy. Sudden death occurred in one patient with SHD. Five syncope-related injuries were noted in 3 patients. CONCLUSION: The mechanism of syncope is different in patients with and without SHD; diagnostic yield and safety are similar in both groups. About 28% of patients with unexplained syncope have an indication to ILR implantation. The need for ILR implantation in the general population is 34 implants/million inhabitants/year.     

The clinical impact of implantable loop recorders in patients with syncope.

AIMS: Implantable loop recorders (ILR) provide an opportunity to record ECG data from a spontaneous syncopal event. We conducted a randomized study to investigate the impact of the Reveal Plus ILR on an unselected population of patients with recurrent syncope. Initial follow-up (at least 6 months) did not demonstrate a reduction in syncopal events or an improvement in quality of life. We report the planned extension of follow-up to 18 months. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients presenting acutely with recurrent unexplained syncope over a 16-month period, following a basic clinical work-up, were randomized to receive the ILR or conventional investigation and management. A total of 421 patients presented, 201 were eligible, median age 74, (IQ range 61-81) 54% female, with median syncopes 3 (IQ range 2-6). Median follow-up 17 months (IQ range 9-23). 42 (43%) of ILR patients and 8 (6%) of conventional patients received an ECG diagnosis (hazard ratio 6.53, 95% CI 3.73-11.4, P<0.001). Time to second syncope was significantly longer for ILR patients, although of borderline significance (P=0.04). A greater variety of diagnoses and treatments were seen in ILR patients. ILR patients had fewer post-randomization investigations and fewer days in hospital; however, cost savings were not statistically significant. There was improved quality of life in the ILR group (visual analogue scales, P=0.03) for general wellbeing. Overall mortality was 12% with no difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Investigation by the ILR significantly increases the diagnostic rate and ECG directed treatments in a typical unselected syncopal population. Long-term follow-up has demonstrated a significant subsequent reduction in syncopal events with improved quality of life.     

Value of the implantable loop recorder for the management of patients with unexplained syncope.

AIM: Recurrent syncope often remains unexplained despite extensive multidisciplinary screening. The implantable loop recorder (ILR) may be a tool to define the cardiac arrhythmias underlying syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 43 consecutive patients with unexplained syncope who underwent extensive cardiological screening and were followed with an ILR. During follow-up, 5 patients had only presyncope, 4 had palpitations, and 15 had a true recurrence of syncope. In all patients with palpitations, 3 with presyncope, and 7 with a recurrence of syncope, the ILR excluded arrhythmias. In the patients with a true recurrence, 1 had symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) treated with drugs, 1 had polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and 7 had asystole and received a pacemaker. Two patients with presyncope received a pacemaker for Mobitz II block and PAF with brady-tachycardia syndrome. One asymptomatic patient received a pacemaker for significant nocturnal asystole recorded by ILR. Abnormalities in the cardiac screening were observed both in patients with and without syncope, but none of these had a predictive value. CONCLUSION: The ILR is a valuable and effective tool to establish an arrhythmic cause for unexplained syncope. The results of head-up tilt testing (HUTT) and electrophysiological study (EPS) are neither sufficiently sensitive nor specific enough in this patient group.