Rattes M F, Klein G J, Sharma A D, Boone J A, Kerr C, Milstein S
Department of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London.
CMAJ. 1989 Feb 15;140(4):381-5.
Cardiac pacing is often considered in patients with recurrent syncope after repeated attempts to document the cause have failed. To assess the results of this tactic we reviewed the records of 104 patients who had received pacemakers for known or suspected bradycardia between September 1973 and March 1985. The patients were classified retrospectively into three groups: group 1 (31 patients with a mean age of 73 years) had unequivocal documentation of bradycardia during syncope, group 2 (42 patients with a mean age of 71 years) had electrocardiographic or electrophysiologic evidence of potential bradycardia but no documentation during spontaneous syncope, and group 3 (31 patients with a mean age of 69 years) had a history "suggestive of" bradycardia-related syncope but no other evidence to support the diagnosis. The rates of recurrence of syncope during follow-up were 6.3%, 7.3% and 32.2% in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively (p less than 0.01). In group 3 recurrence was more probable in patients with loss of consciousness for more than 2 minutes than in those who were unconscious for 2 minutes or less (p less than 0.05). The results suggest that pacemaker implantation is justified for recurrent syncope after extensive attempts to document a spell have failed if abnormal diagnostic test results suggest bradycardia as a possible cause. Empirical pacing is less satisfactory in patients with normal results of evaluation but may arguably be justified when patients have recurrent syncope with injury.
在反复尝试确定病因但失败后,复发性晕厥患者常考虑心脏起搏治疗。为评估这种治疗策略的效果,我们回顾了1973年9月至1985年3月期间因已知或疑似心动过缓而接受起搏器治疗的104例患者的记录。这些患者被回顾性地分为三组:第1组(31例,平均年龄73岁)在晕厥期间有明确的心动过缓记录;第2组(42例,平均年龄71岁)有心电图或电生理证据表明有潜在心动过缓,但在自发性晕厥期间无记录;第3组(31例,平均年龄69岁)有“提示”与心动过缓相关晕厥的病史,但无其他证据支持该诊断。随访期间,第1组、第2组和第3组的晕厥复发率分别为6.3%、7.3%和32.2%(p<0.01)。在第3组中,意识丧失超过2分钟的患者比意识丧失2分钟或更短时间的患者更容易复发(p<0.05)。结果表明,如果广泛尝试记录发作但失败,且异常诊断测试结果提示心动过缓可能是病因,那么起搏器植入对于复发性晕厥是合理的。对于评估结果正常的患者,经验性起搏不太令人满意,但当患者有复发性晕厥并伴有损伤时,也可以说是合理的。