Citations

Background— The primary aim and central hypothesis of the study are that a designated syncope unit in the emergency department improves diagnostic yield and reduces hospital admission for patients with syncope who are at intermediate risk for an adverse cardiovascular outcome. Methods and Results— In this prospective, randomized, single-center study, patients were randomly allocated to 2 treatment arms: syncope unit evaluation and standard care. The 2 groups were compared with χ 2 test for independence of categorical variables. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for continuous variables. Survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. One hundred three consecutive patients (53 women; mean age 64±17 years) entered the study. Fifty-one patients were randomized to the syncope unit. For the syncope unit and standard care patients, the presumptive diagnosis was established in 34 (67%) and 5 (10%) patients ( P <0.001), respectively, hospital admission was required for 22 (43%) and 51 (98%) patients ( P <0.001), and total patient-hospital days were reduced from 140 to 64. Actuarial survival was 97% and 90% ( P =0.30), and survival free from recurrent syncope was 88% and 89% ( P =0.72) at 2 years for the syncope unit and standard care groups, respectively. Conclusions— The novel syncope unit designed for this study significantly improved diagnostic yield in the emergency department and reduced hospital admission and total length of hospital stay without affecting recurrent syncope and all-cause mortality among intermediate-risk patients. Observations from the present study provide benchmark data for improving patient care and effectively utilizing healthcare resources.

Background— We postulated that the variability of the phase shift between blood pressure and heart rate fluctuation near the frequency of 0.10 Hz might be useful in assessing autonomic circulatory control. Methods and Results— We tested this hypothesis in 4 groups of subjects: 28 young, healthy individuals; 13 elderly healthy individuals; 25 patients with coronary heart disease; and 19 patients with a planned or implanted cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD recipients). Data from 5 minutes of free breathing and at 2 different, controlled breathing frequencies (0.10 and 0.33 Hz) were used. Clear differences ( P <0.001) in variability of phase were evident between the ICD recipients and all other groups. Furthermore, at a breathing frequency of 0.10 Hz, differences in baroreflex sensitivity ( P <0.01) also became evident, even though these differences were not apparent at the 0.33-Hz breathing frequency. Conclusions— The frequency of 0.10 Hz represents a useful and potentially important one for controlled breathing, at which differences in blood pressure–RR interactions become evident. These interactions, whether computed as a variability of phase to define stability of the blood pressure–heart rate interaction or defined as the baroreflex sensitivity to define the gain in heart rate response to blood pressure changes, are significantly different in patients at risk for sudden arrhythmic death. In young versus older healthy individuals, only baroreflex gain is different, with the variability of phase being similar in both groups. These measurements of short-term circulatory control might help in risk stratification for sudden cardiac death.