Parry S W, Chadwick T, Gray J C, Bexton R S, Tynan M, Bourke J P, Nath S
Falls and Syncope Service, Institute for Ageing and Health, Newcastle University, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
QJM. 2009 Jul;102(7):461-8. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcp048. Epub 2009 May 25.
Intravenous adenosine has recently been used in the diagnosis of unexplained syncope, but there is no consensus as to the meaning of a 'positive' test. The objective is to determine the sensitivity and specificity of intravenous adenosine testing in the diagnosis of bradycardia-pacing indications [sinus node dysfunction(SND), atrio-ventricular block (AVB) and cardio-inhibitory carotid sinus syndrome (CSS)].
Pilot cohort study.
Patients-(i) Bradycardia-pacing group: Consecutive patients referred for pacing for SND, AVB and CSS; (ii) Consecutive head-up tilt (HUT)-positive VVS patients. Controls-(i) Simple controls (S-Con: normal examination/ECG) and (ii) Electrophysiology controls (EP-Con: consecutive subjects referred for accessory pathway ablation). Pacing referrals and EP-Con had electrophysiology studies to confirm referral diagnosis and exclude others. All subjects had bolus injection of 20 mg intravenous adenosine during continuous ECG and blood pressure monitoring (positive test: >or=6 s asystole, >or=10 s high-degree AVB post-injection). Sensitivity, specificity, safety and tolerability of the test were measured.
Of 264 potential participants (4 SND, 8 AVB, 7 CSS, 10 VVS, 10 EP-Con and 11 S-Con) 50 were studied. All (100%) of the bradycardia-pacing group were adenosine test-positive, as were 6 (60%) VVS. None (0%) and 3 (27%) of the EP- and S-Con groups were positive. Adenosine testing was 100% sensitive and 86% specific for bradycardia-pacing indications, and 100% specific using the diagnostically 'clean' EP-Con results. There were no significant adverse or side effects.
Adenosine testing reliably identified patients with definitive bradycardia-pacing indications in whom alternative diagnoses were excluded. Further work is needed to evaluate the role of this test in the diagnosis of unexplained syncope.
静脉注射腺苷最近已用于不明原因晕厥的诊断,但对于“阳性”试验的意义尚无共识。目的是确定静脉注射腺苷试验在诊断心动过缓起搏指征[窦房结功能障碍(SND)、房室传导阻滞(AVB)和心脏抑制性颈动脉窦综合征(CSS)]中的敏感性和特异性。
前瞻性队列研究。
患者 - (i)心动过缓起搏组:因SND、AVB和CSS而连续接受起搏治疗的患者;(ii)连续的头高位倾斜试验(HUT)阳性的血管迷走性晕厥(VVS)患者。对照组 - (i)简单对照组(S-Con:检查/心电图正常)和(ii)电生理对照组(EP-Con:连续接受旁路消融治疗的受试者)。起搏转诊患者和EP-Con组进行了电生理研究,以确认转诊诊断并排除其他疾病。所有受试者在持续心电图和血压监测期间静脉推注20mg腺苷(阳性试验:注射后出现≥6秒的心脏停搏,或≥10秒的高度房室传导阻滞)。测量该试验的敏感性、特异性、安全性和耐受性。
在264名潜在参与者(4名SND、8名AVB、7名CSS、10名VVS、10名EP-Con和11名S-Con)中,对50名进行了研究。心动过缓起搏组的所有患者(100%)腺苷试验呈阳性,VVS患者中有6名(60%)呈阳性。EP-Con组和S-Con组分别无(0%)和3名(27%)呈阳性。腺苷试验对心动过缓起搏指征的敏感性为100%,特异性为86%,使用诊断性“明确”的EP-Con结果时特异性为100%。没有明显的不良或副作用。
腺苷试验可靠地识别出已排除其他诊断且具有明确心动过缓起搏指征的患者。需要进一步开展工作以评估该试验在不明原因晕厥诊断中的作用。